Law

In response to Justice Breyer's retirement, President Biden has nominated US Court of Appeals Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.

After graduating from Harvard University, Jackson clerked for Justice Breyer and served as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She was nominated for district court judgeship by President Obama and was considered as a potential replacement for Justice Scalia. She was elevated to the US Court of Appeals in March of 2021 after receiving confirmation votes from a bipartisan collection of Senators, including Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski.

Following the nomination, Jackson will face the Senate Judiciary Committee and undergo vetting and questioning by the 20-person team. The committee will then vote on whether or not to advance her to the Full Senate for a final approval vote. If seated, she will have a lifetime appointment and become the first Black woman to serve on the court, as has been pledged by Biden throughout his campaign and presidency.

Submissions that may interest you

Opinions begin at 10:00am EST.

A link to a live blog of SCOTUS rulings can be found here on SCOTUSblog

The Court's opinions can be found here

There are 5 pending cases to be decided by ruling today:

Department of Commerce v. New York

Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S.

Lamone v. Benisek

Issue: In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.

Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Rucho v. Common Cause

Issues: (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Issue: Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Carpenter v. Murphy

Issue: Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).

Will be re-argued next term

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued opinions for Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas. Both cases addressed Texas Law S.B. 8. that banned abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law. The latter authorization allowed private citizens, including citizens residing outside of the state of Texas, to bring civil actions against individuals for aiding a patient with getting an abortion. In both cases, plaintiffs argued that S.B. 8 violated Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In United States v. Texas, the court issued a per curiam ruling, dismissing the petitioner's request for a stay on the enforcement of S.B. 8. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, the court released an 8-1 ruling allowing abortion providers to sue state licensing officers, and a 5-4 ruling denying providers the ability to sue state court clerks. Chief Justice Roberts wrote "The District Court should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay."

Submissions that may interest you

Today I found out I passed the Bar Exam. Upon telling my mom and dad (over the phone), my dad said "this shows to prove the power of prayer. Your mom and I, your aunt and uncle, were praying the whole time for you to pass." This was my third time taking it. It just feels to invalidate my hard work and disregard the multiple times they prayed for me the prior times I took it.

Thanks, God. You a real bro.

There are many cases to potentially be decided by ruling today, including:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Issue: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 4, 2018. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.Update: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case

Gill v. Whitford

Issues: (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

Benisek v. Lamone

Issues: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court erred in holding that, to establish an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander, a plaintiff must prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map; (2) whether the majority erred in holding that the Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle burden-shifting framework is inapplicable to First Amendment retaliation challenges to partisan gerrymanders; and (3) whether, regardless of the applicable legal standards, the majority erred in holding that the present record does not permit a finding that the 2011 gerrymander was a but-for cause of the Democratic victories in the district in 2012, 2014, or 2016.

Janus v. AFSCME

Issue: Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.

Carpenter v. United States

Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Trump v. Hawaii

Issues: (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

South Dakota v. Wayfair

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.

A link to a liveblog of SCOTUS rulings can be found here on SCOTUSblog

Update: That's all for SCOTUS opinions today.