Posted on 04/17/2025 6:50:53 AM PDT by CFW
This morning at 10:00, the Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions on cases from the October 2024 term. A list of those cases can be found here:
Opinions for all cases from the October sitting have been issued and there are only a couple remaining from the November sitting.
Of interest from the December sitting is:
U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 [Arg: 12.4.2024]
Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
We may or may not see any opinions from the Emergency Docket where there are several cases pending in regards to lawsuits against the Trump administration.
The emergency docket cases can be found here:
Once the court announces an Opinion, you will be able to find it at their website at Supremecourt.gov/opinions
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
SCOTUS ping!
We may get one boring opinion or two or three interesting and controversial ones. Opinion day is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you will get.
“... trying to make sense of the Court’s opinions.”
Just consider what George Soros wants. Then the opinions will make some kind of sense.
Any thoughts on if the Supremes found time to address any of the emergency docket cases pending for President Trump’s administration?
“Any thoughts on if the Supremes found time to address any of the emergency docket cases pending for President Trump’s administration?”
They had no oral arguments scheduled for this week and there was nothing else listed on their court calendar for M,T or W, so maybe they were considering the emergency docket then.
Here we go!
Justice Sotomayor has THE opinion of the court today in Cunningham v. Cornell University.
That’s the only opinion to be released today. What a let down!
It is Cunningham v Cornell.
Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.
It is unanimous. Justice Alito has a concurring opinion, which is joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.
This is a complicated question of the interpretation of ERISA law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1007_h3ci.pdf
In Cunningham, the Court holds that one provision of ERISA (Section 1108) sets out affirmative defenses, and that plan fiduciaries have the burden to plead and show that an exemption under that section applies to a transaction that would otherwise be prohibited under another provision of ERISA (Section 1106).
I have no idea what that means, but I’m sure it means something to someone out there. ERISA law is complicated on the best of days.
I’ll keep an eye on the emergency docket today and ping the SCOTUS list if something is released later.
ERISA, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health plans in the private sector.
All I know about ERISA law, is if a Retirement Plan is involved in a divorce case, it is going to be nothing but headaches all the way through trial.
It’s amazing the minutiae that make it to the USSC.
Thank you for this topic & the ping.
But the 2020 election, no standing.
That’s what you get when you have the prostitute Norm’s John in charge of it.
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.