Posted on 01/15/2025 6:49:57 AM PST by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing one or more Opinions at 10 a.m. this morning.
A list of the cases for this term are listed at the link below:
Some expect the decision on the Tik-Tok ban today.
Attorneys at scotublog will be live-blogging the release of Opinions at the article link.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
SCOTUS ping!
I’d like to be added to your SCOTUS list, please.
I’d like to be added to your SCOTUS list, please
You’ve been added to the SCOTUS list.
The first opinion is by Kavanaugh (that means we will not be hearing from Barrett or Jackson today).
It the Opinion in E.M.D. SALES, INC., ET AL. v. CARRERA ET AL.
This is a case about the standard of evidence to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court holds that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies, rather than a more demanding standard such as clear and convincing evidence.
There is at least one more opinion to be released today.
At the time of release, a lot of opinions are of little interest except to the parties to the case.
We are waiting for the next case.
From the opinion, it's amazing to see how a circuit can screw up even basic law like which standard of evidence is applicable in a civil case.
The second and final opinion for today is in ROYAL CANIN U. S. A., INC., ET AL. v. WULLSCHLEGER ET AL. So no Tik-Tok decision for today.
A pretty boring Opinion day. However, we never know what cases will be decided so I’ll continue to start these threads on opinion days. The court has not yet announced when more opinions will be released.
Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677 [Arg: 10.7.2024]
Issue(s): (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Held: The court holds that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to remove the federal law claims that allowed the defendant to move the case to federal court, leaving only state law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and the case must go back to state court.
The decision is by Justice Kagan and it is unanimous.
The left tards on the “scotusblog” quit Twitter because Musk bought it, right? They are now on that stinky site “Bluesky”.
The second and final opinion for today is in ROYAL CANIN U. S. A., INC., ET AL. v. WULLSCHLEGER ET AL. So no Tik-Tok decision for today.
A pretty boring Opinion day. However, we never know what cases will be decided so I’ll continue to start these threads on opinion days. The court has not yet announced when more opinions will be released.
Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677 [Arg: 10.7.2024]
H
Issue(s): (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Held: The court holds that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to remove the federal law claims that allowed the defendant to move the case to federal court, leaving only state law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and the case must go back to state court.
The decision is by Justice Kagan and it is unanimous.
Yes. The lefty know-it-all superior attorneys at scotusblog quit Twitter because although they pretend to support the Constitution, that is only when the law is used to support their position. They can’t handle too much free speech.
If I had to guess, 8-1 in favor of the ban, with the lone dissent from Neil Gorsuch.
Thanks for the thread and the ping!
Same here. Love these threads
You might be right. It is generally expected that Roberts will write that Opinion.
Also today, if anyone is interested is oral arguments in Free Speech v. Paxton. This is the case against the Texas porn site age verification law.
The case, brought by an adult entertainment industry trade group and several content creators, challenges a 2023 Texas law that says sites containing more than one-third of “sexual material harmful to minors” must verify that a user is at least 18 years old or face civil penalties up to $10,000 per day.
Wednesday, January 15, 2025
No. 23–1122. Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken
Paxton, Attorney General of Texas.
Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
Media background on the case:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-porn-sites-bid-strike-online/story?id=117439757
Audio (no video) of oral arguments can be found at the link below. Argument started just after Opinions were issued.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
You are very welcome. I enjoy doing the threads. I’m a big believer in the more information we have in regards to what all three branches of government are doing, the better decisions we can make when it comes to casting our vote.
Guess we will just have to sit tight on the Tik Tok decision. Likely to be the last opinion delivered, I’m betting.
“face civil penalties up to $10,000 per day”
The possibility of excessive fines needs to be dealt with.
Fines should be limited to percentages of income and revenue.
Yep. The decision that eveveryone is waiting for.
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.