Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/05/2025 6:50:28 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing Opinions this morning at 10:00 a.m.
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the opinion release and we will be following along to try and make sense of the court's decisions.
There are 32 cases remaining to be decided for the October 2024 term in addition to several cases on the emergency docket.
One case of interest, and the only case remaining undecided from the December sitting is the Skrmetti case.
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.
It's possible we will get that decision today. It would be nice if we could get an Order from the court reining in the federal district court judges, but I'm not holding my breath.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
SCOTUS ping!
Note: My link to the October 2024 cases is bad. The list of pending cases is here:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2024/
I like to think of it as the SCOTUS s*** show.
“violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment”
If the Tennessee law does violate the equal protection clause then laws against minors possessing firearms should also violate the equal protection clause.
We have the first opinion. It is by Justice Jackson, in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services.
(There is 3 boxes today, so several opinions will be released).
This was a case about what a plaintiff bringing a reverse discrimination claim has to show when she is a member of the majority — here, a straight woman claiming that she was the victim of discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
The lower court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must show “background circumstances” but the court today holds that such a showing is not required. The court sends the case back to the lower court for another look in light of this.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf
Or drinking alcohol or gambling or buying recreational weed or legally contracting
I wonder if Barrett will be holding the African piece of XX female meat’s (She’s not a woman) hand when they vote.
ustice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Ames, which Justice Gorsuch joined.
The consensus is this Opinion is not a surprise, because everyone basically agreed by the time that the oral argument rolled around that there is no higher bar for reverse discrimination plaintiffs.
Smith & Wesson! Lawsuit barred.
“Against the backdrop of that law, Mexico’s complaint does not
plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted
gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. “
Next up: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the lawsuit seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for gun violence in Mexico.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1141_lkgn.pdf
The court holds that Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly plead that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels.
Unanimous
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J.,
and JACKSON, J., filed concurring opinions.
The unanimity for the first 2 surprises me.
And now 3/3 on unanimity. Wow. Didn’t see that coming.
The unanimity for the first 2 surprises me.
Me as well.
Next is Catholic Charities v Wisconsin
By Sotomayor. Also unanimous.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf
This was a case about WIsconsin’s denial of an exemption from a state unemployment tax to Catholic Charities. The exemption applies to nonprofits “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
But the state supreme court said that Catholic Charities did not qualify becuase the group did not proselytize and served non-Catholics.
Next up is CC Devas v. Antrix, from Justice Alito.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1201_8759.pdf
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is reversed.
Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
They are rolling along today!
Next up, from Thomas (but not the last): Blom Bank v. Honickman.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1259_758b.pdf
Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
reversed and remanded.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT,
JJ., joined, and in which JACKSON, J., joined as to all but Part III. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
“… because everyone basically agreed by the time that the oral argument rolled around that there is no higher bar for reverse discrimination plaintiffs.”
—————
Good, finally the Leftist shitferbrains are coming to understand that ANY kind of discrimination is…discrimination. About freaking time.
Lab Corp v. Davis is dismissed as improvidently granted. (This means that they did not decide it after all because they ultimately decided that they made a mistake in granting review.)
Justice Kavanaugh dissents from the decision to DIG the case.
(And my computer connection just slowed to a crawl. It seems to do that a lot on SCOTUS opinion days).
And my computer just slowed to a crawl.
Mehico should be fast and furiously suing Barry O’ and his little butt buddy, Eric the Holder. They were the ones who were delivering weapons to the Mehicans fast and furiously. Don’t blame it on the gun manufacturers. The next thing you know, the bass turds will be suing car manufactures for causing Mehicans to have accidents while driving drunk in America. Mehico is not our friend. If they were, they would NOT be sending all their sick, lame and lazy and criminal populations in to invade America and wipe the butts of Vermonsters and the DemonRAT gringos.
You would think that would be a no-brainer and wouldn’t need to have a SCOTUS decision to confirm.
That’s all the decisions for today.
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.