Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Opinions - [June 27, 2025]
scotusblog ^ | 6/27/25 | staff

Posted on 06/27/2025 6:45:13 AM PDT by CFW

The Supreme Court will be announcing Opinions from the bench of cases from the October 2024 term this morning at 10:00.

There are five cases remaining plus the immigration case from the Emergency Docket.

Scotusblog will be liveblogging the Opinion release and we will be following along and trying to make sense of the court's decisions.

Besides the immigration/national injunctions case of Trump v. CASA, there is the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton:

Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech.

and

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: courts; immigration; scotus; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
The other 3 cases are:

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.

Louisiana v. Callais

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Justices announce opinions in reverse seniority order. So if we hear first from Justice Kavanaugh, then we will not be hearing from Barrett or Jackson today. This is the breakdown of the number of Opinions by each justice thus far this term:

Chief Roberts = 6 Thomas = 6 Alito = 5 Kagan = 5 Sotomayor = 6 Gorsuch = 5 Kavanaugh = 6 Barrett = 5 Jackson = 5 Per Curiam = 9

1 posted on 06/27/2025 6:45:13 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CottonBall; spacejunkie2001; Bshaw; ptsal; 11th_VA; Reno89519; newfreep; frogjerk; OneVike; ...

SCOTUS ping!


2 posted on 06/27/2025 6:46:00 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Bunch of blackrobe buttheads work about half a year and then take vacations and make speeches. Meanwhile, the peons wait for years for them to pass judgement.

The SCOTUS needs to work full days and full weeks, with two weeks off. They need to do their damn job and make decisions on the Constitution.


3 posted on 06/27/2025 6:57:04 AM PDT by budj (Combat vet, 2nd of 3 generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Thankyou for your hard work and input!


4 posted on 06/27/2025 6:57:08 AM PDT by Dacula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall; spacejunkie2001; Bshaw; ptsal; 11th_VA; Reno89519; newfreep; frogjerk; OneVike; ...

We have the universal injunction opinion!!!

It is from Justice Barrett, and the vote is 6-3

Trump v CASA

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

The government’s applications to partially stay the district court’s nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases are granted.


5 posted on 06/27/2025 7:02:45 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CFW

bump for later


6 posted on 06/27/2025 7:03:49 AM PDT by joe fonebone (And the people said NO!! The end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dacula

The court says that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

From the opinion of the court: The principal dissent’s analysis of the Executive Order is premature because the birthright citizenship issue is not before us.

Justice Sotomayor dissents (of course), in an opinion joined by Kagan and Jackson (of course). Jackson also has a separate dissent (of course).

The Opinion is 119 pages so expect to read a lot of articles dissecting the Court’s Opinion over the next few days.


7 posted on 06/27/2025 7:05:19 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Yea!!!


8 posted on 06/27/2025 7:05:44 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Thanks !


9 posted on 06/27/2025 7:06:29 AM PDT by 11th_VA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CFW

At the end, the court says that the government’s applications to partially stay the district court’s preliminary injunctions “are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief with respect to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

The court instructs the district courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

The court says that it is not deciding whether the executive order is constitutional.

This is not a complete smack down of the federal district judges but at least it is a start.


10 posted on 06/27/2025 7:07:07 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I’m getting my Friday USSC groove on. My prayers are looking good if this holds.


11 posted on 06/27/2025 7:07:29 AM PDT by Dacula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SomeCallMeTim

So the nationwide injunctions are invalidated?


12 posted on 06/27/2025 7:07:48 AM PDT by 11th_VA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

From near the conclusion of Justice Barrett’s opinion for the Court, on behalf of the six conservatives:

“federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”


Well, that’s a bit of a smack-down from Barrett. I withdraw half of the snarky things I’ve said about her.


13 posted on 06/27/2025 7:08:45 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dacula

I need to learn to post pictures.

I want to post the - So does this mean there is a chance meme.


14 posted on 06/27/2025 7:10:41 AM PDT by Dacula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Sounds good, I’m curious what it means in practice.


15 posted on 06/27/2025 7:11:09 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dacula

Lots in the separate opinion. First, Thomas has a concurring opinion in which he stresses that the Court “today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Alito has a concurring opinion in which he notes that the court does not resolve two issues that “potentially threaten the practical significance of today’s decision: the availability of third-party standing and class certification.”

He says that the “Court does not address the weighty issue whether the state plaintiffs have third-party standing to assert the Citizenship Clause claims of their individual residents.”

ACB *blisters* Justice Jackson’s solo dissent — “ We observe only this:JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while em-bracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Alito says next that the ruling “will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following” the procedural protections for class certification.

(Barrett is still reading from her opinion.)

District courts are going to have to start entering into the thicket of class certification (which is not something they are particularly fond of)


As I said, there is going to be a lot of dissection of this Opinion over the next few days.


16 posted on 06/27/2025 7:12:12 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

“Sounds good, I’m curious what it means in practice.”


I think in practice the federal district court judges are being reined in. They may still issue injunctions, but they aren’t going to last long and people aren’t going to take them seriously.


17 posted on 06/27/2025 7:13:40 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Sotomayor is now reading her dissent from the bench. She ain’t happy.

It will be a few minutes before the next Opinion is announced. I’m going to run to the kitchen to get a coffee refill. LOL


18 posted on 06/27/2025 7:15:46 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

Seems that way yes. Nationwide injunctions might be possible with a nationwide class action case. But that will be a lot harder to do


19 posted on 06/27/2025 7:16:04 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

This also means that single judges can’t issue a nationwide block on the actions of a future Democratic president.


20 posted on 06/27/2025 7:16:42 AM PDT by JSM_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson