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 06/23/2026 6:42:36 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions from the October 2025 term this morning at 10:00.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the release and we will be following along.
There are 17 decisions pending for this term and we expect all opinions will be released by June 30th. You can find a list of the cases at October 2025 cases. Note: The word "held" after the case name indicates the Opinion has already been released. The word "Issues" indicates the questions to be resolved by the Court.
You can find the Opinions on this term's previously decided cases at October 2025 Opinions. Today's opinions will be uploaded just after the case is announced from the bench.
Chief Roberts has written 3 opinions, Thomas 5, Alito 2, Sotomayor 6, Kagan 5, Gorsuch 6, Kavanaugh 2, Barrett 5, and Jackson 6. There have been 10 per curiam.
There are several big cases on which we are awaiting decisions.
Little v Hecox
Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Watson v RNC
Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
|
|
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. |
Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Blanche v Lao
Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.
Mullin v Doe
Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals.
And several more. I have a feeling we are going to be hearing a lot from Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh between now and June 30th.
Let's see what we get today!
SCOTUS ping!
Three boxes of opinions today. So, 4 or 5 opinions (maybe 6).
Thanks for doing this.
L
First opinion is from Barrett, in Cisco Systems v. Doe.
The vote is 6-3.
Issue:
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
This is a lawsuit brought by practitioners of the Falun Gong religion, who contend that they or family members were victims of human rights abuses committed in China. They contend that Cisco Systems helped the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party to create a massive online surveillance system to find Falun Gong practitioners.
The court today holds that “courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms” and that the TVPA “does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-856_kjfm.pdf
The court reverses the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing the lawsuit to go forward.
The justices announce opinions in reverse seniority order. With the first Opinion from Barrett means we will not hear from Jackson today (thank goodness).
Thanks for doing this.
You’re welcome.
Barrett is reading her opinion from the bench so we are waiting for her to finish before we get the next opinion. Sotomayor’s dissent is lengthy so hopefully she will not read her dissent as well.
Justice Kavanaugh has the next in Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimex.
Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-699_f204.pdf
The vote is 6-3, and the decision of the DC Circuit is reversed and remanded.
The court holds that the Helms-Burton Act itself trumps the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Therefore, the court says, “plaintiffs who sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities under the Act are not required to also satisfy an FSIA exception.”
Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
We have Landor, and it is by Gorsuch.
Issue Area
Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1197_h3ci.pdf
The vote is once again 6-3. Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
Held: Individuals may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under the statute; because the individual defendants in this case did not voluntarily and knowingly consent to face RLUIPA liability in an agreement with the federal government, Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them
Of note: Justice Kavanaugh was the only justice who hadn’t written (a majority) in the November sitting, which had nine cases.
In Landor, the court holds that a Louisiana man cannot sue prison officials who shaved his head even after he showed them a copy of a court ruling that allowed him to keep his long hair for religious reasons.
More on Landor:
Under the Constitution’s spending clause, Gorsuch writes, Congress cannot impose liability on the prison officials directly and “must depend instead on consent,” but they never agreed to be sued in cases like this one.
Some background: RLUIPA is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The inmate, Damon Landor, is a devout Rastafarian who, as part of his faith, had grown his hair for nearly 20 years without cutting it. The two prisons where he had been incarcerated previously had allowed him to keep his hair long, but when he was transferred to a third prison with just a few weeks left in his sentence, prison officials disregarded the court ruling and shaved his head bald.
The next decision is Pung v. Isabella County, by Alito,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-95_dc8e.pdf
Issue Area
(1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and
(2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
The court holds that the “proper baseline ... is the price obtained in a tax sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of our country’s history of tax sales.”
We have the final decision of the day and it is by Thomas.
Blanche v Lou.
The vote is 6-3. Jackson dissents joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This is a case about when immigration officers can deny admission (that is, permission to stay in the US indefinitely) to green card holders, as opposed to paroling them – allowing them to enter the US temporarily. The issue comes to the court in a challenge by a Chinese citizen with a green card to the decision by immigration officials to classify him as having been paroled instead of admitted because he had been charged with selling counterfeit clothes. The classification made a difference in terms of the bar that the government would have to meet to deport him.
Held: The court holds that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf
In Blanche v Lou
The court throws out the Second Circuit’s ruling in favor of Lau, the green card holder, and sends the case back to the lower court.
“...before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.”
?
Lau argues that the same clear-and-convincing-evidence standard that the Board applies during the removal proceeding should apply to the border officers determining that an applicant is seeking an admission. But nothing in the INA supports that argument.
Lau also suggests that a lawful permanent resident may be regarded as seeking admission only after being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, citing this Court’s footnoted dictum in Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U. S. 257, 275, n. 11. A straightforward reading of the statutory text contradicts Lau’s interpretation.
Section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) says that a lawful permanent resident may “be regarded as seeking an admission” if he “has committed” a crime identified in §1182(a)(2), which includes “a crime involving moral turpitude.” §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
Under §1101(a)(13)(C)(v), the Government may regard a lawful permanent resident as seeking admission as soon as he “committed a” crime involving moral turpitude “even if (as in [Lau’s] case) the conviction occurred” later. Barton v. Barr, 590 U. S. 220, 232. Section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) incorporates by reference only the crimes §1182(a)(2) identifies, not its requirement of conviction. Pp. 7–9.
Thank you for another great set of Scotus posts and your very helpful elucidations. Todays rulings are encouraging.
I hope the even more consequential and controversial decisions still outstanding give us cause to rejoice.
There are 12 cases remaining undecided. Another decision day is already scheduled for Thursday. They will probably schedule another opinion release for Friday, Monday or Tuesday. They could schedule a day after the 30th, but that so seldom happens that I’m saying they will still finish up by the end of the month.
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.