In Barrett v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the double jeopardy clause prohibits a defendant from receiving a separate firearm conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) for the same criminal conduct. Section 924(c) prohibits the possession, carrying, or use of a firearm to advance either a federal crime of violence or a drug-trafficking offense. Section 924(j) applies, in turn, when a defendant who violates Section 924(c) also “causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm.”

At least some of the justices at Monday morning’s oral argument in Villarreal v. Texas appear to be willing to permit trial courts to limit what defense lawyers may discuss with their clients overnight when the client is still on the stand. Specifically, several justices seem to think the court may prohibit lawyer and client from direct discussions of the client’s testimony, but not collateral matters of trial strategy and management that relate to the testimony. 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning appeared largely sympathetic to a Colorado licensed counselor who is challenging the state’s ban on conversion therapy – that is, treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people. In Chiles v. Salazar, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with the counselor, Kaley Chiles, that the ban discriminates against her based on the views that she expresses in her therapy. But several justices suggested that, rather than striking the law down outright, the court should send the case back to the lower courts for them to take a closer look at whether the law passes constitutional muster.

The oral argument Monday in Berk v. Choy was filled with the nuts and bolts of judicial procedure – what it takes to get a case started; what can justify a court in stopping the case in its tracks right after it gets to the court; and, most importantly, who gets to answer those questions. It’s not at all clear that all of the justices will reject applying in federal court the requirements under review – Delaware procedures designed to limit medical malpractice litigation – but some of them viewed the requirements as unacceptably hostile to the central conception of the federal trial system.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to temporarily block a district court order requiring changes to the Google Play app store based on its violation of antitrust law. Citing security concerns, Google had asked the justices to allow it to maintain its current Play store policies for app-related purchases. The court offered no explanation for its denial, as is its custom on the interim docket.