|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-313||6th Cir.||Mar 30, 2011||Jun 9, 2011||8-0||Thomas||OT 2010|
Holding: Because the FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations i.e., that to satisfy its duty under Section 251(c)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a carrier must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection the Court will defer to the FCC's views. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: The Federal Communications Commission can bar AT&T from charging market rates for access to the equipment its competitors need to access AT&T's network.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas on June 9, 2011. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. (Kagan, J., recused).
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.