Posted on 05/23/2024 8:14:33 AM PDT by CFW
We have the first decision from Justice Jackson. Coinbase v. Suski. It is unanimous, with a concurring opinion from Gorsuch.
Here is the link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf
The court holds that when parties have agreed to two contracts -- one that sends arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending such disputes to the courts -- a court must decide which contract governs.
---
We have Alexander v. SC Conference of the NAACP. It is by Justice Alito.
The vote is 6-3.
Here is the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf
The SC gerrymandering case, which was a case about whether South Carolina’s Congressional District 1 violates the Constitution because it was the product of racial gerrymandering, as a three-judge district court concluded, when the state contends that the Republican-controlled legislature’s goal in enacting the map was instead to ensure that the district remained a safe one for Republicans.
The court in this case reverses the trial court in part and sends the case back for further proceedings.
Alito writes that the court has navigated the tension that results when there is a high correlation between race and partisan preference "by endorsing two related propositions." First, he says, the party challenging the constitutionality of the map must "disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship."
Second, he writes, "we start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith." Here, he says, the three-judge court that deemed the map unconstitutional "paid only lip service to these propositions. That misguided approach infected the District Court's findings of fact, which were clearly erroneous under the appropriate legal standard."
---
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
This is about the Armed Career Criminal Act and how to determine whether a state crime constitutes a "serious drug offense."
Here is the link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-6389_6537.pdf
For more information, SCOTUSblog will have write-ups on the court's Opinions later on today.
At least Coinbase doesn’t have a sex, to avoid confusing the non-biologist Justice Brown.
This still leaves about 36 (I believe) cases that have yet to be decided. That include both the Presidential immunity case and the Fischer case.
This term of court ends June 30 so we should be receiving opinions on about 7 cases a week from now until the end of June.
LOL!
____
In Brown v. US, the final case of the day: The question in that case was whether for purpose of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which extends the minimum sentence for someone who has been convicted of a felony and possesses a gun when that person has been convicted of at least three “serious drug offenses,” the definition of “serious drug offense” should incorporate the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense at issue (as the federal government argues) or instead the federal drug schedules that were in effect either when the individual committed the federal firearm offense or at the time of sentencing for that offense (as the defendants in these cases argue).
The court today held that trial courts should look at federal drugs schedules that were in effect at the time of the state conviction.
Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Kagan and in part by Justice Gorsuch.
In the NAACP SC case, Amy Howe at Scotusblog writes:
Both sides in the dispute had asked the Supreme Court to rule by Jan. 1, 2024; when the justices had not done so by mid-March, the Republican legislators returned to the court, seeking to have the 2024 congressional elections go forward using the map that the lower court had deemed unconstitutional. But before the Supreme Court could rule on the legislators’ request, the lower court issued an order leaving the 2021 map in place for the 2024 elections.
The court writes that there is “no direct evidence” that the legislature relied on race when it drew District 1, and that the circumstantial evidence to support such a conclusion “falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”
Alito adds that “what the court did—inferring bad faith based on the racial effects of a political gerrymander in a jurisdiction in which race and partisan preference are very closely correlated—would, if accepted, provide a convenient way for future litigants and lower courts to sidestep our holding in Rucho that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court.”
Justice Thomas writes a separate opinion concurring in part to express his view that there should be no role for courts in deciding racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims.
The Constitution, Thomas writes, “contemplates no role for the federal courts in the redistricting process.”
Kagan’s dissent is long — 34 pages. She accuses the majority of “stack[ing] the deck against the Challengers. They must lose, the majority says, because the State had a ‘possible’ story to tell about not considering race—even if the opposite story was the more credible.”
Nicely done! Alito b####slaps the left that challenged congressional maps as ‘racist’.
Once again Roberts proves he is not a liberal on the litmus test issue for liberals, i.e. race.
“we start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith”
Now that’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are
Forming a district that guarantees a majority of black voters is called racial gerrymandering, but don’t tell that to the left.
Alito is correct on this. Not assuming this would mean overturning the will of the people.
I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with Alito on this. It is the correct way to approach the legal question.
But from the point of view of reality, every redistricting effort from both parties is certainly not acting in good faith, they are always trying to get an advantage for their side.
Strangely enough I suppose, I don’t even care anymore.
I hope that with the immunity case SCOTUS at least kicks it back down tom the lower court for further consideration. That would delay “Jack Smith’s” kangaroo court trial until after the election.
In Pennsylvania, only democrats are allowed to gerrymander districts for their benefit.
When a Republican legislature (voted in by the people) gerrymander districts, the democrat controlled State Supreme Court orders it unconstitutional and submits it’s own districts (that of course, favor democrats).
This is how it works in Pennsylvania. The voters be damned.
Here is a link to the discussion of the SC gerrymandering case at Althouse blog (Anne Althouse is a retired constitutional law professor).
Most of the comments are spot on and rather amusing.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/05/writing-for-majority-justice-samuel.html
The two biggest cases are the one that eliminates the Chevron Doctrine and, of course, the Presidential immunity case. Within the Presidential immunity case, the unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith is extremely important.
“The two biggest cases are the one that eliminates the Chevron Doctrine and, of course, the Presidential immunity case. Within the Presidential immunity case, the unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith is extremely important.”
Yeah and I expect those two to be issued on the last opinion day at the end of June; just before the Justices get the hell out of dodge for the summer.
BTW, Here is the write up on the SC district map case from Amy Howe at scotusblog.
And here is an article on the cases that have been relisted.
The most controversial cases almost always have the opinions published on the last judicial day at the Supreme Court. Can’t say I blame them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.