Posted on 06/27/2023 7:05:10 AM PDT by CFW
At 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.
As of this morning, there are 10 cases remaining to be decided.
They can be reviewed here:
https://amylhowe.com/2023/06/26/entering-the-final-week-with-10-cases-left-to-decide/
The first decision for today has been released. It is Mallory v. Norfolk Southern. It is by Justice Gorsuch. The vote is 5-4. Justice Barrett dissents, joined by Roberts, Kagan and Kavanaugh. The lower court's decision is vacated and remanded.
Opinion here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1168_kifl.pdf
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (argued Nov. 8, 2022): This case is a major dispute over personal jurisdiction – that is, a court’s power to hear a lawsuit against a defendant. The question before the court is whether a Pennsylvania court can hear a lawsuit brought against a Virginia-based railroad company by a Virginia man who worked for the railroad in Virginia and Ohio. The employee, Robert Mallory, blames his exposure to asbestos and other chemicals on the job for his diagnosis of colon cancer. To sue Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania, he relied on a state law that requires out-of-state corporations to register with the state as a condition of doing business there; under state law, that registration gives state courts jurisdiction over the companies. But the Pennsylvania state courts ruled that Pennsylvania’s registration scheme violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause by giving state courts jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in all circumstances.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
The second opinion released is Counterman v. Colorado, from Justice Kagan. The decision appears to be 7-2, but I’m not sure of the dissenters.
The court holds instead that a mental state of “recklessness” is enough. The state must show, Kagan writes, that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The state need not prove any more demanding subjective intent to threaten another.
The decision is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Counterman v. Colorado (argued April 19, 2023): “True threats” are not protected by the First Amendment. The question before the justices is how courts should determine what constitutes a “true threat.” The defendant in the case, Billy Counterman, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking after he sent Facebook messages to a local musician that left her feeling “extremely scared.” Counterman contends that, to determine whether speech is a “true threat,” courts must consider the speaker’s intent; the state, by contrast, argues that courts should apply an objective test that looks at whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Really appreciate the summaries, CFW.
About damtime“The end of affirmative action
SCOTUS is expected to rule that colleges can no longer rig the racial diversity of their students
Some say that’s ‘dangerous & cruel’
Others say it’s about time”
Thank you @AdamMortara for fighting to save the US from actual systemic racism https://t.co/UBwzlLnz8S— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 27, 2023
We have the decision in Moore v. Harper. It is by the Chief.
This is the North Carolina redistricting case.
The decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.
(My opinion: When the court wants to punt and give the left a win, they have Roberts write the decision. He is good at appeasing the left. Note that democrat states are allowed to redistrict as they wish but conservative governed states must adhere to arbitrary rules from the left and the courts)
Justice Thomas dissents, joined by Gorsuch and in part by Justice Alito.
I don’t yet have a link to the decision but will post it when available.
That is the final decision of today. There is now seven cases left to be decided for the term.
Moore v. Harper (argued Dec. 7, 2022): In this major election case, a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argue that the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts – barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature. But it’s not clear whether the justices will reach that question. In April, the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new 5-2 Republican majority, reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it lacked the power to review the challenges to the map.
Here is the “Moore” decision.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
And that’s all for today!
Just tell us if it’s good or bad for freedom. I can’t understand this legal gobbledygook.
“Just tell us if it’s good or bad for freedom. I can’t understand this legal gobbledygook.”
I don’t think I like Kagan’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado. Somehow I get the feeling that many of these First Amendment cases are being ruled upon to set precedent for going after conservatives in the future.
I certainly do not like Moore, nor the earlier decided redistricting cases (Alabama and Louisiana). Districts should be set by state legislatures and not the Courts.
Haven’t read the full partial concurrence yet,but Sotomayor and Gorsuch seem to get it in Counterman. Disappointing to learn that Barrett is more of an Alito than a Gorsuch in this area.
Looking at the opinions by author (https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/), it seems like Alito and Roberts are going to have the bulk of the remaining opinions...
I’m hoping Alito has the loan forgiveness, affirmative action, and 303 Creative cases. Roberts is more likely to “split the baby” to appease the left and give them at least a partial win.
They've already established the entirely nonsensical idea that words are violence. This would be the logical next step. The 1st Amendment will soon only apply to leftist marxist speech. All others will be deemed "violence" and prosecuted as such.
The leftist marxists have conquered the courts and turned justice to injustice. This is only the beginning of the new Amerika built on lawfare. Just wait til they decide to get real serious about taking the guns. Molon Labe? Lol, they will for sure, through the courts.
I really hope Alito has affirmative action for exactly the reason you said. It needs a 100% firm rejection to have a chance of actually being ended. No, you may not consider race in college admissions, period, Not with a checkbox. Not when sitting around discussing the essays. No, period. That is the only way the good guys will have a xhance of successfully battling the games the colleges are going to play in response.
What is there, one more week of decisions left to their term?
“They’ve already established the entirely nonsensical idea that words are violence. This would be the logical next step. The 1st Amendment will soon only apply to leftist marxist speech. All others will be deemed “violence” and prosecuted as such.”
Exactly. And the constant attack on the Courts that you have been hearing over the past few weeks, is intended as a warning to Roberts that he needs to keep the Court in line and make sure rulings give the left the “wiggle” room they need to implement their version of the First Amendment and other Constitutional rights. If he does not, then they plan to pack the Court, come hook or crook.
“What is there, one more week of decisions left to their term?”
Just this week. The Court has announced another opinion day for this Thursday. It is doubtful they will issue all seven remaining opinions on that day, so there will probably be another opinion day on Friday as well. If so, that will be announced on Thursday. Once all remaining opinions for this term have been released, the justices will all head out of town to disappear for the first couple weeks or the entire month of July.
I’ll try to remember to start another SCOTUS thread on Thursday for those opinions.
Thanks. Half a week left!
I don’t see how threats can be free speech, unless terminating the existence of the person threatening can be covered under ‘stand your ground’.
If someone makes a physical threat, such as saying all you [insert X] should be killed and I’m gonna do it”, then I should either be able to have cops and courts take this person out of circulation or be able to do it myself without civil or criminal penalty.
How about a parent that tells the school board or principal/superintendent: "If you try to indoctrinate my child into the transgender world, and encourage/enable it, you and your family will suffer the consequences." What would be the recourse? It was a warning.
Without violence specifically mentioned? One could argue that the ‘consequences’ meant were lawsuit or recall.
If they said ..I will kill you and your family” that would be a different matter. If something is *legal* (however disgusting you find it) and you threaten someone for doing it, the legal consequences might be pretty bad, and probably should be.
I might not like Muslims building a mosque in my neighborhood, and I sure as hell hate bicyclists doing a ‘critical mass’ road blockage, but threatening violence against same should see me put in the slammer and labeled a felon and/or a dismissal of charges against anyone who pre-emptively took me out.
I can’t help but notice that Scotus does everything they can to throw the elections to the democrats. They refuse to take on vote fraud as well as caving to the democrats every whim.
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.