Yesterday the Supreme Court issued three opinions, and Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the term will end today; five cases remain to be decided, including cases involving partisan gerrymandering and the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. In Kisor v. Wilkie, the court left in place prior precedent holding that courts should defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own genuinely ambiguous regulation; the justices agreed unanimously to wipe out the judgment of the lower court, but they disagreed 5-4 about whether the precedent should be overruled. Amy Howe analyzes the opinion for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Kalvis Golde rounded up early coverage of and commentary on the opinion for this blog. Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for the decision. At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that “Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority reaffirmed the importance of deferring to agency expertise[, b]ut she also limited the deference in specific ways.” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley writes that “many legal conservatives cast Wednesday’s decision as a victory,” “[y]et the fact remains that Auer survived a direct attack despite sure predictions of its demise, ensuring its continued viability for the foreseeable future.”
In United States v. Haymond, the justices voted 5-4 to invalidate a federal law requiring a defendant registered as sex offender to return to prison for at least five years if federal judge finds that the defendant violated terms of his supervised release. This blog’s opinion analysis comes from Amy Howe, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Jacqueline Thomsen reports for The Hill that “Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s liberal bloc on Wednesday to rule … against [the] statute, finding it violated a sex offender’s constitutional right to a trial by jury.” At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that “[i]n dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito appeared alarmed that the court might in a future case endanger the entire concept of supervised release.” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger writes that “[a] broad attack on supervised release revocations would indeed be a grave concern,” and that although “[t]he direct effects of [yester]day’s decision are not severe, … future developments warrant monitoring.”
Finally, in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, the court held 7-2 that the Constitution bars states from imposing residency requirement for liquor licenses. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report that “[t]he case required the court to consider whether the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition and granted states wide latitude to regulate alcohol, is limited by a constitutional doctrine that bars states from interfering with interstate commerce,” and that “[c]ommerce won out.” Nina Totenberg and Domenico Montanaro report for NPR that “[t]he practical effect of the decision will be that more big-box competitors are likely to move into the state, forcing some local stores out of business[, b]ut liquor prices may go down, and there will be more product choices for consumers.” Lisa Sorenen discusses the opinion at the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog. Mark Walsh has a courtside view of yesterday’s opinion announcements for this blog.
At PatentlyO, Christine Farley explains that Monday’s decision in In Iancu v. Brunetti, in which the court held that a federal ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment, “does pave a path forward for amending the Lanham Act to add a bar to the registration of marks that are ‘scandalous in their mode of expression,’ or are ‘vulgar, lewd, sexually explicit, or profane.’” At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf argues that “[i]f Congress accepts the invitation to rewrite the Lanham Act to forbid trademark registration of profanity as such, the Court should close the door it left open in Iancu[:] Profanity can coarsen our public discourse, but regulating it risks still greater damage.”
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that in their latest filing, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, “urged the justices to deny what [they] characterized as the government’s ‘extraordinary request’” that the court decide a question raised by new evidence in another case: “whether Ross intended to discriminate against Hispanics” when he added the question. At Balkinization, Neil Siegel implores the justices not to “’just look away’” from the real motivations behind the decision.
Briefly:
We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY