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 06/12/2025 6:41:19 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions today at 10:00 a.m. on cases from the October 2024 term. A list of those cases can be found at October 2024 cases
There are 26 cases remaining undecided for this term. That does not include the cases still pending from the Emergency docket. (Mainly cases involving the Trump administration).
All cases from the October and November sittings of the Court have been decided. There is only one case from the December sitting pending and that is:
U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 [Arg: 12.04.2024 ]
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.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the release of Opinions at Scotusblog and we will be following along to see if we can make sense of the Court's Opinions.
(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.
Opinions are released in reverse order of seniority. For instance, if the first decision announced is from Justice Kavanaugh, then we will not hear from Barrett and Jackson today.
SCOTUS ping!
Someone at scotusblog made this comment:
“i think that sonia S. will regret not retiring under biden, senate maps are brutal for Dems and the 2028 election will not be very easy fort them”
LOL!
By the way, my internet is wonky on the best of days but since storms earlier this week, my connection is intermittent. Hopefully, it will work long enough for me to post the opinions that are released.
First we have the habeas case Rivers v. Guerrero, from Justice Jackson. It is unanimous.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1345_g3bh.pdf
Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in favor of Texas is affirmed.
This was a case argued on March 31.
It’s pretty short. 14 pages.
The court holds that once a district court enters its judgment with regard to a first habeas petition, a second habeas petition counts as a second or successive application for habeas, which is subject to “stringent gatekeeping requirements.”
There are three boxes of opinions so we probably have at least 2 more coming today.
We know what opinions are like—and everyone has one.
The next case is from Justice Barrett. It’s Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch.
It’s 8-1. Gorsuch dissents.
Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-416_l5gm.pdf
This is a case about the jurisdiction of the tax court to hear an appeal once the possibility of a levy to collect unpaid taxes is no longer a possibility.
The court holds that it does not.
We know what opinions are like—and everyone has one.
That is true.
The taxpayer in this case disputed the debt that prompted the IRS to seek the levy and wanted to get the IRS to refund money that it was holding because she had overpaid her taxes while her appeal was pending. The court today holds that she cannot appeal.
I think I agree with Gorsuch.
Speaking of Gorsuch, he has the next opinion in Martin v. US.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-362_mjn0.pdf
The decision is unanimous. Justice Sotomayor has a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Jackson.
This is the wrong house raid case.
The family’s lawsuit for damages is allowed to go forward.
I do as well.
The Opinions have been pretty short today. Averaging about 25 pages. We are expecting at least one more; maybe more.
Justice Sotomayor has the next opinion, in Parrish v. United States.
Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-275_k6gc.pdf
It is 8-1, with a Gorsuch dissent. Jackson concurs in the judgment, joined by Thomas (!). (strange pairing)
The court holds that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline to appeal but before the court grants a motion to reopen the judgment does not need to file a second notice of appeal. The original notice, the court says, relates forward to the date that the court granted the motion to reopen.
We have at least one more Opinion for today. Waiting.....
Justice Thomas has the next (but not last!) opinion in Soto v. US. It too is unanimous.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf
Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim involving “retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
This is a case about whether a law providing combat-related special compensation to qualifying veterans confers authority to settle such claims. The court holds that it does, and therefore that settlement procedures and limitations established under the Barring Act, which establishes a default settlement regime for certain claims against the government, does not apply to claims for CRSC payments.
This case is from the April sitting.
We have a least one more coming.
We have the sixth and final decision of the day. It is by the Chief, and it is AJT v. Osseo Area Schools.
Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-249_a86c.pdf
It is unanimous, although there is a concurring opinion by Thomas (joined by Kavanaugh) and one by Sotomayor (joined by Jackson).
This was a case about whether the parents of a student who brought a disability discrimination case against the school district are required (as the lower court held) to show that the school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.”
The court today holds that they are not.
Instead, the court holds, schoolchildren bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are required to meet the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
That’s all the Opinions for today. The next scheduled Opinion day is next Wednesday.
Pretty inconsequential cases today. Hopefully they get to some of the important cases next Wednesday.
Thank you for posting all the opinions for today!
Very appreciated!
After clearing out the six from today, there are 20 cases remaining. The Court is on pace to clear their docket easily by the end of the month. And there are still the 3 Trump-related cases on the Emergency Docket (which may or may not be decided before the end of June).
There is already an Opinion day scheduled for both the 18th and 26th, so if they add two more days and issue 4 opinions each time, they can get out of DC the evening of June 28th.
I guess the most high profile cases will, as usual, be released on the final day.
Thank you for posting all the opinions for today!
Very appreciated!
You’re welcome. I think it is good to have a FR record of the opinions in case it’s needed to refresh our memory at a later date.
Thank you!
Superb summaries thank you.
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.