Posted on 06/18/2025 6:44:56 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be announcing opinions from the bench at 10:00 a.m. this morning.
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the opinions the opinions at Scotusblog and we will be following along and trying to make sense of the court's decisions.
There are 20 cases remaining undecided for this term. A list of the cases can be found at October 2024 cases.
All opinions from the October and November sitting have been announced. The only remaining case from the December term is Skrmetti.
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 get that case today.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Another Opinion day has already been announced for Friday. The court will be closed tomorrow for a federal holiday.
NOTE: I have a 10:00 doctor's appointment. If I'm not able to post the decisions as they are announced, I'll do so once I'm free. Or, if someone here is willing, they could jump in and post those for me.
SCOTUS ping!
Let’s watch to see how much more Barrett lurches to the left.
Court holds that Tennessee’s law barring certain medical care for transgender minors (such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments) is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause and satisfies rational basis review.
Currently, six of the nine Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. Think about that, how many Catholics signed the Declaration of Independence?
Answer= 1 out of 56
I’ll jump in to pinch hit for you... quoting from the s-blog host:
“We have the first decision. It is Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas. It is by Justice Kavanaugh, and the vote is 6-3.”
“The court holds that because Texas and a private company were not parties to the Commission’s licensing proceeding, they cannot obtain judicial review of the commission’s licensing decision.”
“This is a case that arises from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s grant of a license to open a storage facility for nuclear waste in western Texas, near the New Mexico border.”
“The court holds that under the Hobbs Act, only an aggrieved “party” can obtain judicial review of a Commission licensing decision.”
“To qualify as a “party,” the Atomic Energy Act requires you to be a license applicant or to have successfully intervened in the licensing proceeding.”
The court upholds the ruling by the Sixth Circuit, which in turn had upheld the Tennessee law.
We have the first decision. It is Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas
It is by Justice Kavanaugh, and the vote is 6-3
Justice Gorsuch dissents, joined by Thomas and Alito
The court holds that because Texas and a private company were not parties to the Commission’s licensing proceeding, they cannot obtain judicial review of the commission’s licensing decision.
This is a case that arises from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s grant of a license to open a storage facility for nuclear waste in western Texas, near the New Mexico border.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1300_b97c.pdf
Sounds great, if that means that the Tennessee law stands.
Or kagan to the right. She’s surprising at times.
“Justice Thomas has the next two opinions.”
“The court holds that the EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the exception for “nationwide scope or effect,” requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit. “
...
“So the EPA’s 2022 denials of requests for exemptions by some small refineries should have been filed in the D.C. Circuit, the court today holds.”
The case is Oklahoma v. EPA.
"Nicely worded summary by Gorsuch at the end of his opinion (though I can't speak to its merits): "At the end of the day, venue rules are like traffic laws.They simply tell litigants where to go, and they should beeasy to follow. As I read it, the Clean Air Act provides aclear rule for cases like this one. Applying that rule here, Iwould direct the parties to the appropriate regional circuit.The Court doing otherwise, I respectfully dissent.""
"The Court holds that the EPA's disapprovals of state implementation plans for Oklahoma and Utah, which detail how they would comply with the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision, are locally or regionally applicable actions that can be reviewed in a regional court of appeals. "
Justice Thomas has the next two opinions
The first is EPA v. Calumet Shreveport.
The decision is 7-2. Gorsuch dissents again, joined this time by Roberts.
The court holds that the EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the exception for “nationwide scope or effect,” requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.
So the EPA’s 2022 denials of requests for exemptions by some small refineries should have been filed in the D.C. Circuit, the court today holds.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1229_c0ne.pdf
We have a second EPA case from Justice Thomas. It is more or less unanimous. Gorsuch has an opinion concurring in the judgment, again joined by Roberts. Alito was recused.
The case is Oklahoma v. EPA.
The Court holds that the EPA’s disapprovals of state implementation plans for Oklahoma and Utah, which detail how they would comply with the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision, are locally or regionally applicable actions that can be reviewed in a regional court of appeals.
Thomas twice writing in favor of the EPA with support from liberals.
And we have Skrmetti!
"In its closing paragraph, the Roberts opinion says that this "case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound."
"But the court's role, Roberts says, is "only to ensure that" the law "does not violate" the equal protection clause. "Having concluded that it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." "
"Sotomayor dissents, joined in full by Jackson and in part (mostly) by Kagan.
"Justice Kagan's dissent seems to echo some of the concerns in the Chief's last paragraph re: disputed issues:"
"For all the reasons JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR gives, Tennessee’s SB1 warrants heightened judicial scrutiny...."
"I take no view on how SB1 would fare under heightened scrutiny, and therefore do not join Part V. The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues.""
Skrmetti is 6-3 By Roberts.
Court holds that Tennessee’s law barring certain medical care for transgender minors (such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments) is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause and satisfies rational basis review.
The court upholds the ruling by the Sixth Circuit, which in turn had upheld the Tennessee law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
(Okay, I’m leaving the doctor’s office parking lot — will post more later).
"[The Court] authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.""
(So she denies both biology and mental health issues)
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.