Tomorrow we expect the Court to issue ... (click to view) Twitter has reactivated our @SCOTUSblog account and restored the deleted tweets.
Editor's Note :
Tomorrow we expect the Court to issue orders from its June 27 Conference at 9:30 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at 9:15 a.m. Twitter has reactivated our @SCOTUSblog account and restored the deleted tweets.
Issue: Whether the court of appeals was correct when it held
that it was “categorically precluded” from reviewing the record as a whole to determine whether
plaintiff’s version of events, which the district
court held sufficient to defeat qualified immunity, was blatantly contradicted by the record such
that no reasonable jury could believe it; and (2) whether, if the court of appeals was required to review
the record as whole to determine whether
plaintiff’s version of events was blatantly contradicted
by the record such that the defendant deputies
were entitled to qualified immunity, a video or
audio recording (such as in Scott v. Harris) is the only evidence that is sufficient to overcome
conflicting version of events.
On Monday, the Court issued orders from its June 23 Conference. It added three cases to its merits docket for next Term. The Court also released its final opinions of the Term, in McDonnell v. United States, Voisine v. United States, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The Court also met on Monday for a final Conference before the summer recess; John Elwood's Relist Watch for that Conference is available here. We expect orders from that Conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
Zubik v. Burwell Because both the Obama administration and the religious non-profits, colleges, and schools challenging the accommodation offered to those who object to complying with the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate confirm that contraceptive coverage could be provided to the challengers’ female employees, through the challengers’ insurance companies, without any notice from the challengers, the decisions of the courts of appeals rejecting the challenge are vacated and remanded. Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates the challengers’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by the challengers’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Because the Ninth Circuit failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirements -- an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, but the Ninth Circuit's observations concerned only "particularization" -- its Article III standing analysis was incomplete.
Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County Whether, when a state court lacks personal jurisdiction over many cases against a defendant, and the state court combines those cases with other cases into a coordination proceeding, the Due Process Clause prohibits the state from deeming the personal-jurisdiction defense waived merely because the defendant participates in the coordination proceeding, absent a knowing, voluntary, and intentional waiver of the defense.
Fitch Ratings, Inc. v. First Community Bank, N.A. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a court, in the absence of specific or general jurisdiction, nevertheless exercises personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant under a theory of “conspiracy jurisdiction.”
PharMerica Corp. v. United States ex rel. Gadbois Whether, as the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held, courts must apply the first-to-file bar as of the time the follow-on case is filed and dismiss a copycat qui tam action brought when a related action is pending; or whether, as the First Circuit held, subsequent events can cure the first-to-file defect, such that a follow-on case may avoid the statutory bar simply by remaining on the docket until the first-filed action inevitably ends.