We expect the Court to issue opinions tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. We will be live blogging beginning at around 9 a.m. (All times are Eastern.) We have put together a list of some of the commonly asked questions about opinion announcements that we have gotten during recent live blogs, along with our responses, but please let us know during the live blog if you have a question that you don’t see answered here.
Question: What opinions will the Court issue?
Answer: Unlike some other courts, the Court doesn’t announce in advance which cases will be decided on a particular day. The only time we have a good sense is the very last day, when the Court issues its final rulings.
Question: How many opinions will the Court issue?
Answer: The Court also does not announce in advance how many opinions it expects to release on any particular day.
Continue reading »
Coverage of and commentary on Monday’s opinions continues apace.
The Court’s seven-to-two decision in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters is preempted by federal law, continues to provoke interest. At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses the possible reasons why Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed on to Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, even though the decision seems to “provide a roadmap for states to implement voter [ID] laws over federal objection.” Also at the Election Law Blog, Josh Douglas focuses on a passage in which the Court concludes that “Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them”; Douglas contends that “Scalia’s push for a renewed focus on state qualification rules might actually be a move in the right direction for voters, at least where it comes to the constitutional right to vote.” At More Soft Money Hard Law, Bob Bauer notes that “[o]verall, the Court [in Arizona] seems to have shown scant interest in motives and effects [behind state voting laws] and have given the states leeway . . . to stay on their current course.” Other coverage comes from Chantal Valery of Agence France-Presse (via Global Post); commentary comes from David H. Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center, who argues that the decision is not a “Pyyrhic victory” but instead a “sweeping reaffirmation that the Constitution gives Congress very broad powers to protect the right to vote in federal elections.” Continue reading »
Following Monday’s decisions, there are fourteen merits cases from October Term 2012 that have not yet been decided. Although we do not know which decisions the Court will issue on which days, we expect the Court to issue all of these remaining decisions between tomorrow, Thursday, June 20, 2013, and the end of June, when the Court traditionally breaks for its summer recess. The cases below are arranged by the sitting in which they were argued; a list of the remaining cases arranged in alphabetical order is available here.
Continue reading »
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases.
As the world gathers at One First Street to watch the Term’s remaining blockbusters indelibly change life as we know it, life in the Relist Watch tidal eddy continues at its normal unrushed pace.
Two of this week’s grants paid their dues in the Relist Watch bush leagues before getting the call to the majors. Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., 11-1507, the disparate impact Fair Housing Act case, first made an appearance here last fall, before the Court CVSG’ed. Ditto (twice) for Law v. Siegel, 12-5196.
Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
12-1055
Issue: (1) Whether prudential standing is jurisdictional, as the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits have held, or whether it is non-jurisdictional and can be conceded or waived by a defending party, as the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits have held; (2) whether, when Congress enacts a comprehensive and integrated statute governing a single subject matter, a group of petitioners whose interests Congress expressly identified and protected are in the “zone of interests” of that statute and therefore have prudential standing to challenge an agency decision issued under it; and (3) whether regulated industries have constitutional standing to challenge a rule that, as an integral part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, imposes substantial new burdens on those industries.
Coverage and commentary focused on the five opinions that the Court issued yesterday; this blog’s round-ups of the early coverage of the decisions can be found here and here.
Coverage of the opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters is preempted by federal law, comes from Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (audio), Bill Mears of CNN, Jess Bravin and Tamara Audi of The Wall Street Journal, Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Laura Klein Mullen at JURIST, and Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com. Commentary comes from Derek T. Muller at Excess of Democracy, while at The Daily Beast, Richard L. Hasen argues that although the decision may look like a win for federalism, it “could shift some power in elections back to the states.” Both the Brennan Center for Justice and the Constitutional Accountability Center hailed the decision as a “victory.”
Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
12-1175
Issue: Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school district to pay for a residential placement that is required to treat a child’s mental illness.
This morning the Court granted four new cases and issued five opinions.
Lyle’s report on the opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (including a “Plain English” summary) is here. Marty Lederman’s post examining the possible implications of the decision is here. Tejinder Singh also provided our initial analysis of that decision.
Lyle has coverage of the decision in Salinas v. Texas (including a Plain English summary). Tejinder posted early coverage of the decision this morning.
Lyle has analysis (which includes a Plain English summary) of the decision in FTC v. Actavis here. Early coverage of the decision is here.
NEW: 9:40 Mike Gottlieb has coverage of Alleyne v. United States.
Kevin Russell has our coverage of Maracich v. Spears.
Max Mallory rounded up early news coverage of today’s decisions and orders here.
UPDATED: Max has a post with video introducing the blog’s new format here.
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That would seem to be the lesson from the Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, which today resolved a decade-old controversy regarding the constitutional distinction between two kinds of sentences: mandatory minimums and statutory maximums.
Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben arguing the case for the U.S. (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
Analysis
Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.
Continue reading »
Submit Event
