WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, June 24

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• John Roberts is all business in his conservatism (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• Why The ‘Trump Court’ Won’t Be Like Trump (Peter Canellos, Politico Magazine)
• Kavanaugh’s Sports Fandom Shines in Athlete-Centered Opinion (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson & Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg Law)
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Who Posted Vulgar Snapchat Message (Mark Walsh, Education Week)
• What A Profane Cheerleader’s Case Could Mean For Jan. 6 Insurrectionists (Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Talking Points Memo)

OPINION ANALYSIS

No sentencing enhancements for recklessness convictions under federal Armed Career Criminal Act

In Borden v. United States, the Supreme Court analyzed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s force clause or elements clause. Under the ACCA, a person who has three violent felony convictions and is then convicted of possessing a firearm faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. In this case, the court had to decide whether the term “violent felony” includes crimes committed with a reckless state of mind.

In a decision on June 10, five justices agreed that a recklessness crime does not count as a “violent felony” under the ACCA, but they came to that decision using different reasoning. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a four-justice plurality opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a solo opinion concurring in the judgment only. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, June 23

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• The Politics of Supreme Court Retirements (Isaac Chotiner, The New Yorker)
• Stop Telling Justice Breyer to Retire (Dahlia Lithwick, Slate)
• Clarence Thomas vs. the Fictional Progressive Narrative (Jason Riley, The Wall Street Journal)
• John Roberts: The man in the middle (Sarah Isgur, Deseret News)
• Challengers to the Affordable Care Act Lose their Third Supreme Court Case: Will They Bring a Fourth? (Michael Dorf, Verdict)

Live

Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, June 23 (complete)

We live blogged on Wednesday, June 23, as the court issued opinions in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Lange v. California and Collins v. Yellen. Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.

Opinion Analysis

Justices curb securities-fraud class actions, albeit gently

The Supreme Court’s Monday decision in Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System will not be remembered as one of the court’s seminal securities cases. Indeed, it might not even change the result in the case before it. But it does provide another chapter in the court’s continuing efforts to tighten the standards by which the lower courts evaluate securities-fraud class actions.

The case involves the process by which investors that think they are the victims of securities fraud try to aggregate those claims for class-based adjudication. The focal point of that process is whether common issues of law and fact “predominate,” and a common problem is whether the complaining investors can prove jointly that they relied on the alleged misrepresentations of the defendants. The Supreme Court has an answer for that: Its 1988 decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson adopted a presumption that plaintiffs relied on statements that affected the price of the security at the time they traded in it. Because those statements affect the price for all investors, they allow common adjudication of the question of reliance. The question in this case is how to proceed when defendants try to rebut that presumption.