Posted on 02/25/2025 6:53:57 AM PST by CFW
At 10 a.m. EST, the court expects to issue one or more opinions in cases from the October 2024 term.
A list of the cases pending for this term are located here:
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
SCOTUS ping!
October 20204? We may be waiting a long time.
L
Some of those proposals could use a translation from legalese to American English
We have Glossip and the Opinion is authored by Sotomayor.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466_5h25.pdf
Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson join the opinion in full, Barrett joins in part.
The court holds that because the prosecution violated its obligations under Napue v. Illinois, in which the Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to correct false testimony, the court reverses the state court’s judgement and sends the case back for a new trial.
We may be indeed.
Thomas dissents, joined by Alito and in part by Barrett. Gorsuch did not participate in this case.
We are expecting at least one more decision this morning.
In this case, Oklahoma’s attorney general had joined Richard Glossip, who is on death row in Oklahoma, in arguing that he was entitled to a new trial. The Oklahoma AG was represented by Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general. Glossip was represented by Seth Waxman, another former U.S. solicitor general.
Barrett has an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She said that she would not order the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set aside Glossip’s conviction. Instead, she said, the court should have corrected the state court’s “misstatement of Napue” and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Chief Roberts has the opinion in Lackey v. Stinnie.
The vote is 7-2. (Unless Roberts has another Opinion this will be the final one of the day).
Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621 [Arg: 10.8.2024]
Issue(s): (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-621_5ifl.pdf
This was a case about whether a group of drivers whose licenses were suspended for failure to pay court fines were “prevailing parties” for purposes of being eligible for attorney’s fees when the district court granted a preliminary injunction in their favor, barring the state from enforcing the law, and then the Virginia legislature repealed the law.
The court holds that the drivers are NOT prevailing parties because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties.
SCOTUS is overrated. Those boneheads are getting ready to stick it to American taxpayers and that’s unconstitutional. Damn Feral stooges.
Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor. She writes that there “is no persuasive reason to believe that Congress meant to preclude fee awards for every plaintiff who secures preliminary injunctive relief but not a final judgment, no matter the context.”
SCOTUS is overrated. Those boneheads are getting ready to stick it to American taxpayers and that’s unconstitutional. Damn Feral stooges.
I’m ticked that after two-plus centuries of the President being the head of the executive branch, the courts, including SCOTUS seem to be discovering a “Trump exception” to Article II of the Constitution.
That is all the opinions for today. The court has now moved on to bar admissions and then to oral arguments in Esteras v. United States and Perttu v. Richards.
You can hear the oral arguments live starting in a few minutes at the court’s website.
Esteras v. U.S., No. 23-7483 [Arg: 2.25.2025]
Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324 [Arg: 2.25.2025]
Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
There is no indication on the Court’s calendar when we will have another Opinion day.
Wait! I was wrong. There is another Opinion day tomorrow. My bad. I should have hit “refresh” before stating otherwise.
I guess we will do this again tomorrow.
There is another Opinion day scheduled for tomorrow.
The case I’m interested in from the February term is this one:
Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 [Arg: 10.8.2024]
Issue(s): (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.
“Wait! I was wrong. There is another Opinion day tomorrow.”
Maybe they will make a President Trump ruling.
Thank you!
I hope they differentiate between a “parts kit” and “plumbing pipe”, if the opinion is affirmative.
I can make a shotgun in the aisles of Home Depot faster than most partials can be finished or converted.
Just gives the government more power to pass unconstitutional laws and then when called on it at significant expense to the aggrieved party moots the case by changing the rule or law in question. This is bad for citizens.
I am not one to agree with these two often but this is either a bad ruling or a bad law or both.
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.