Posted on 03/21/2025 6:59:02 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will release Opinions from the October 2024 at 10:00 a.m. this morning.
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the opinions as they are released. You can follow that blog here.
The cases for the October 2024 are listed at the link below:
There are two cases that remain undecided from the October sitting. Those are:
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.
and
Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365 [Arg: 10.15.2024]
Issue(s): Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
We may see Opinions from one or both of those cases today. Or, we may get neither.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
What I'd like to see is for the Court to issue an Order prior to their normal Opinion release, that slaps down the federal courts in their lawfare against President Trump, but I doubt that is going to happen.
scotusblog has changed the link to the live opinion feed. The correct link is here:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-friday-march-21/
We have the first opinion, in Delligatti v. US. It is by Thomas.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-825_q713.pdf
The vote is 7-2, with Gorsuch dissenting joined by Jackson.
This case is about the interpretation of a federal sentencing law that imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who carries a gun during a “crime of violence” – which is in turn defined as a crime that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”
Delligatti v. U.S., No. 23-825 [Arg: 11.12.2024]
Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
The court holds today that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death necessarily involves the “use” of “physical force” against someone else.
It is from the November sitting.
The chief justice has the second and final opinion, in Thompson v. United States.
The question in this case is whether a federal law that makes it a crime to make false statements to the FDIC applies to statements that are misleading but not false.
Thompson v. U.S., No. 23-1095 [Arg: 1.14.2025]
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
The question in this case is whether a federal law that makes it a crime to make false statements to the FDIC applies to statements that are misleading but not false.
The court holds that it does not criminalize statements that are misleading but true.
“Under the statute,” the chief writes, “it is not enough that a statement is misleading. It must be ‘false.’”
The decision is unanimous. Justices Alito and Jackson have concurring opinions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1095_8mjp.pdf
“by the action of an explosive”
So, propellant’s are OK.
Not surprising. Many lawyers would have no careers if making “misleading, but not false” statements was outlawed.
RE: Thompmson — This was the case of a Chicago alderman, and a member of Chicago’s Daley family, who took out loans from a bank.
He was later indicted because he told the FDIC that he had “borrowed” the amount of one of the loans. But he said that his statements were not false because he had taken out one loan for that amount.
He was convicted and the Seventh Circuit upheld his conviction.
The court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s decision. It does not address the government’s contention that Thompson’s statements were false, because (the chief writes) neither the trial court nor the court of appeals addressed that issue.
Folks coming downstairs from the courtroom report that Justice Gorsuch was not present today.
The decision is unanimous. Justices Alito and Jackson have concurring opinions.
My internet connection is about nil (why does that happen on Opinion days, I just don’t know). Nothing from the Court on the lower court’s overreach.
I don’t want to hear from these frauds until they stop the current judicial coup.
I hope Gorsuch is okay.
No other opinion days scheduled yet
But there are some major cases coming up next week: Louisiana v. Callais, the redistricting case; and FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the nondelegation doctrine case.
We could know more today about the possibility of opinions next week.
We’re [scotusblog] also following the shadow docket, where the Trump administration has asked the court to intervene on the birthright citizenship case. The court has instructed the challengers to respond by April 4, which (as others have also observed) is a pretty long time for the shadow docket.
I expect we’ll have more on the shadow docket from the Trump administration by then.
SCOTUS is run absolutely by Malta, CCP, and obeys
all DNC and terrorists worldwide.
Americans have had it with the Blackrobed Army defending
terrorists against the US Constitution and the
real victimed Americans.
Thanks, and on this I would agree with the ruling.
That’s good. Otherwise they would have to try to distinguish between statements which were true but deliberately misleading and those which were true and not deliberately misleading, but the person hearing the statement was too dumb to understand the plain meaning of the statement.
That’s good. Otherwise they would have to try to distinguish between statements which were true but deliberately misleading and those which were true and not deliberately misleading, but the person hearing the statement was too dumb to understand the plain meaning of the statement.
I agree. Not all “misleading” statements are meant to be lies. LEOs are experts in twisting both their questions and your answers.
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.