Posted on 06/20/2024 6:31:55 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions for the October 2023 this morning at 10:00. Attorneys at Scotusblog will be in the press room and will liveblog the opinions as they are released here
You can find a list of the cases for this term here:
There are 23 cases remaining to have decisions released between now and the end of the month (I can recall one time when the term continued into the first week of July but that's not the norm).
For those keeping score, thus far Roberts has written 2 opinions; Thomas 6, Alito, 4, Kagan 4, Gorsuch 2, Kavanaugh 4, Sotomayor, 7, Barrett 3, and Jackson 4. (Two cases were per curiam)
Cases of interest that remain undecided are the Trump immunity case, the Fischer case (relating to Jan 6 and Trump), and the two cases relating to the Chevron deference issues, Loper Bright and Relentless.
There is also a 2nd Amendment case, Rahimi, regarding possession of a firearm by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. And a taxation case, Moore v. U.S. regarding whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
And of course, there are the First Amendment case. First is NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, then Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and then Missouri v. Murthy Issue: Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Thanks for post!
We have Diaz v. US. It is by Justice Thomas. It is NOT the last opinion.
It is 6-3, with a Gorsuch dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This was a case about whether prosecutors in a drug-trafficking case can call a government witness to provide expert testimony to rebut a defendant’s contention that she did not know that she was carrying drugs. The question comes to the court in the case of a woman who was stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border with 28 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden in her car. She maintained that the car belonged to her boyfriend and that she didn’t know that the drugs were in it.
The court holds that expert testimony that ‘most people” have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant and therefore does not violate federal evidentiary rules. It is a victory for the federal prosecutors, as the court upholds the ruling in the government’s favor by the Ninth Circuit.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-14_d1o2.pdf
OK, thanks for the clarification.
We have the fourth and final opinion of the day . It is a per curiam opinion in Gonzalez v. Trevino, announced by the Chief.
This was a case about what kinds of evidence a plaintiff alleging that she was arrested in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment must show to qualify for the exception outlined in Nieves v. Bartlett, which holds that although plaintiffs must generally show that police did not have probable cause to arrest them, they can also show that they were arrested when others who had not been engaged in protected speech would not have been. The question comes to the court in the case of a 76-year-old Texas woman who was arrested after she – accidentally, she claims – picked up a petition that she had initiated and placed it in her binder after a long meeting. She was charged with violating a state law that prohibits tampering with government records.
The per curiam opinion agrees with Gonzalez, the woman who was arrested, that the court of appeals took a view of Nieves that was too narrow. Requiring her to provide examples of people who also mishandled a government petition but were not arrested “goes too far,” the court holds.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1025_1a72.pdf
So. None of the cases we are waiting for were on the opinion docket for today.
We will do this again tomorrow. Same bat time...same bat station.
There is some waist high bicycle fencing around the building not barricades.
Ok just heard this also! Thanks for your reply!
Interesting. We have 3 mugwumps on the court that like siding with the 3 idiots on the court. This is why this country is inevitable screwed.
I am hoping also. People still have to realize that FDR committed a pretty serious infraction with interning huge numbers of American Nisei during WWII. IMO, the same thing goes with Johnson and Gulf of Tonkin...
I’m confused about this one because someone said immunity will be kicked back to the lower court to define ‘official business’. How does this shake out in this regard?
FDR committed a pretty serious infraction with interning huge numbers of American Nisei during WWII.
I can’t imagine any American court countermanding FDR’s internment order.
I wouldn’t have imagined a countermanding order effort, either. My point was that what he did as President was highly illegal, IMO and a USSC ruling that might come out as “no one above the law” would have put him in the hot seat.
...but sending at least a message I guess.
...hopefully the opinion will come down today on Trump so that we can move ON...
November 2024 cannot come soon enough for me. I'm truthfully having trouble with anxiety... shamefully.
Thanks, I hadn’t realized the order of release.
I hear you, and, am right there with you 💞
Cast ALL your cares on Jesus, for He cares for you. Purposefully hand him every issue and problem you’re carrying and you will be liberated.
Bet all you own or hope to own on that?
Ping me please!
Thank you THANK YOU for this post!! I NEEDED to hear these words this morning....You are SO RIGHT!!
Cast ALL your cares on Jesus, for He cares for you. Purposefully hand him every issue and problem you’re carrying and you will be liberated.
Works every time.
Check you mail 💞
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.