Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Live blog of opinions

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Live blog of opinions

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 27, 2019

We're live-blogging at this link as the Supreme Court releases its final opinions of the term.

SCOTUS holds that addition of question about citizenship to 2020 census does not violate Constitution’s enumerations clause or the Census Act, but that district court was warranted in remanding case to Department of Commerce to provide a non-pretextual explanation for adding the question (case page in Commerce v. New York).
SCOTUS today rules that partisan-gerrymandering challenges to electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court, dismissing two challenges:
(1) By Democratic voters to North Carolina congressional map drawn by Republican officials (case page in Rucho v. Common Cause at this link);
(2) By Republican voters to one district drawn by Democrats in Maryland (case page in Lamone v. Benisek at this link).
SCOTUS also holds that state law assuming driver’s consent to blood test for drugs and alcohol, even when driver is unconscious, provides exception to Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement (case page in Mitchell v. Wisconsin at this link).

Andrew Hamm Manager

Posted Thu, June 27th, 2019 8:12 am

Bio & Post Archive »

Posted Thu, June 27th, 2019 8:12 am by Andrew Hamm

We’re live-blogging as the Supreme Court releases its final opinions of the term. Join us. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.

Posted in Live

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Live blog of opinions, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 27, 2019, 8:12 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/live-blog-of-opinions-46/

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas.
On Thursday, the justices released their opinions in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, Rucho v. Common Cause, Lamone v. Benisek. and Department of Commerce v. New York. The justices set Carpenter v. Murphy for reargument in the fall.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  The Secretary did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the District Court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Lamone v. Benisek Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
- Department of Commerce v. New York The Secretary did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the District Court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment—affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious—is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- Rucho v. Common Cause Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
- Kisor v. Wilkie Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas Tennessee’s 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the commerce clause and is not saved by the 21st Amendment.
- United States v. Haymond The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s judgment – that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 66

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	66
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions

27
Opinions
Conference