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 ...
I guess I know how my next few days are going to be spent. I’m going to eat my elephant one bite at a time. Nourish my mind with the insight on how to fight this battle going forward.
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.
Of course. Lower court rulings are already ignoring the SCOTUS, so . Who knows where we go
Given the complexity, high stakes and controversial nature of this issue, writing an opinion joined in full by all the concurring justices is no small feat.
Sotomayor omits the traditional “respectfully” from her “I dissent” at the end of her opinion.
So did Jackson who wrote “With deep disillusionment, I dissent”
“Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, says the executive order on birthright citizenship “shall not take effect until 30 days after the date of this opinion.”
The delay in the effective date of the court’s ruling gives time for another way to challenge the orders: class actions.”
So the Roberts/Barrett court drags their feet, hoping the Trump admin and country can be thwarted by other means?
Sotomayor is still reading from her dissent. As usual, her reasoning is emotional and political rather than based upon law and the Constitution.
She will eventually wind down and we can proceed with the other opinions.
Barrett unloaded on Jackson in her response - “She decries an imperial Executive, while promoting an imperial Judiciary”.
“JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.” -
I’m glad Barrett “unloaded” on her.
Hopefully PDJT will acknowledge and follow the law of the land as he always has, and cite the Supreme Court when he tells lower court judges they can go scratch their collective asses.
““Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, says the executive order on birthright citizenship “shall not take effect until 30 days after the date of this opinion.””
I noticed that. It does take a bit of the “wham” out of the whamy. I’m sure the CASA attorneys have their petition for class actions status all ready to file.
Out of control judges? Not a problem - a win for Trump and MAGA....
What about an executive who pardons people who have not yet been charged with a crime - like Fauci et al.
Fantastic!!
Looks like great news, almost worthy of a “BOOM” or “BOMBSHELL”... :)
What about an executive who pardons people who have not yet been charged with a crime - like Fauci et al.
Good point!
Since CASA was from Barrett, we will not get an Opinion from Jackson today, although we may get more dissents.
Next Opinion is:
The next case is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
This was the challenge to the structure of a task force in the Department of Health and Human Services that made recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to the patients
The vote is 6-3, with Thomas dissenting joined by Alito and Gorsuch.
In Braidwood, the court holds today that the appointment of the task force members is consistent with the Constitution.
It would seem and it is really common sense...That’s why they are within “Districts” and Federal Law is not encumbered by districts.
The court holds specifically that the task force members can be removed at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations about preventive services are reviewaable by the secretary before they take effect.
Thomas’s dissent contends that the majority erroneously relied on a new theory that the government “invented” on appeal.
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined
Right-click on the image you want to use (on any website).
Click “Copy image address” or “Copy image URL”.
Paste that URL into the HTML tag like this:
<img src="https://howtomarketagame.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image-9.png">
Next up is the FCC case. This is the one I believe I missed in my list of the opinions due today.
It is by Justice Kagan, and the vote is 6-3 again. Gorsuch dissents, joined by Thomas and Alito.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf
This was the challenge to the federal program that subsidized low-cost telephone and internet services in, for example, rural areas and for libraries and schools.
There is a a “universal service fund” to receive and disburse the money for subsidies, and the FCC created a private corporation to manage the fund’s operations.
Today the Supreme Court rejects a challenge to the universal-service scheme.
I’m assuming this is the “service fund” that pays for all those programs to sign people up for free phone service. You see those little tents in parking lots next to the “Pay-day loan” shops where they advertise “Free Cell Phones”. Yeah, we pay for that in our “service fund” donations.
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.