Posted on 06/21/2024 6:30:15 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will release Opinions this morning at 10:00 a.m. Attorneys at scotusblog will be in the press room and live-blogging the Opinions as they are received.
There were four opinions released yesterday which leaves 19 cases remaining for this term. Yesterday's thread on those opinions is here:
For those keeping score, thus far Roberts has written 2 opinions; Thomas 7, Alito, 4, Kagan 5, Gorsuch 2, Kavanaugh 5, Sotomayor, 7, Barrett 3, and Jackson 4. (three cases were per curiam)
Cases of interest and great importance that remain undecided are the Trump immunity case (Trump v. U.S.), the Fischer case (relating to Jan 6 and Trump), and the two cases relating to the Chevron deference issues, Loper Bright and Relentless.
There is also a 2nd Amendment case, Rahimi, regarding possession of a firearm by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.
And of course, there are the First Amendment case. First is NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, then Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and finally Missouri v. Murthy Issues: Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
A list of the cases for this term can be found at October 23 term
Happy SCOTUS Opinion day. Say a prayer for the Justices.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
We are still expecting more opinions, which could come from Justices Sotomayor, Alito, Thomas, or the Chief Justice.
The left has to be getting concerned. As these cases are decided with the “main” ones still outstanding, the more likely it is Roberts, Alito, and Thomas have the main ones.
Sotomayor already has 7 opinions so it’s not likely she has many of the ones remaining.
Good luck. Sending good vibes.
Yep - taking 13 months so far but her interview is on July 15.
I see... and we are getting one now involving gun rights where Thomas is the lone dissenter.
We have the fifth and final decision of the day: United States v. Rahimi. It is by the Chief Justice.
This is the second amendment case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order.
The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
The vote is 8-1. Thomas dissents.
I said in a early thread this was not a good case for conservatives to hang their hat on when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.
Gun ruling 8-1.
Or the jury has to unanimous in the Erlanger decision. It was mentioned in post 14 by CFW
Thanks so much for all the detail you provide on this. I seem to recall there was a j6 case, not immunity but something else. Did I dream that?
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order.
The vote is 8-1. Thomas dissents.
The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Lots of concurring opinions in addition to the Thomas dissent.
Roberts explains that “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.”
So, red flag laws via court action (due process) are okay. The question is going to be how effective that due process is.
SO now we wait until Wednesday...
Thanks so much for all the detail you provide on this. I seem to recall there was a j6 case, not immunity but something else. Did I dream that?
There is. That is the Fischer case. We will get that opinion next week.
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
Silver lining, Biden was counting on this case to save his @ss.
So long as it is a court issuing the red flag and there is due process and the person poses a risk, they may have their firearms secured TEMPORARILY. So, due process and do they define temporary?
SO now we wait until Wednesday...
___
Yep. And probably Thursday or Friday as well.
The immunity case will probably be the last opinion issued. The justices will then immediately head to the airport to get the heck out of DC.
So far - except for the bump stock ban and NY state acting like the mafia to suppress the NRA’s free speech, these have mostly been smaller cases few care about.
The Chevron doctrine
Presidential immunity to prosecution without impeachment and conviction by the Senate
Jan 6
Murthy vs Missouri....ie the federal government leaning on social media companies to censor and ban political opponents
have yet to be announced. These are the big cases we’re all waiting on.
Obviously won't matter if you're an illegal.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
After New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022), this Court’s directive was clear: A fire-arm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
If I can be so bold as to paraphrase the good Justice (who wrote THIRTY-TWO pages in his dissent) from this intro, I think he's saying this: "the Court is being hypocritical to one of its own prior decisions."
The reason the most controversial cases are issued last is just that. They are controversial. Unless deciding on ideology, there is a lot of back and forth with Justices changing sides based upon law or points previously not considered. The clerks are researching law to present to their justice and those cases are discussed in conference several times as issues are debated.
Those such as Jackson and Sotomayor pick their side based on emotion and political bias and refuse to budge, but the other justices can be swayed.
It’s also why they are the most divided opinions with so many being 5-4.
I thought they weren’t issuing opinions on Thursday. Are they? I was thinking it was just Wednesday and Friday
Barrett is another David Souter.
Whoever recommended Barrett to Trump should be executed. /spit
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.