SCOTUSblog: Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 23

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I know there's an existing thread, but I can't find it now. I'm sorry. I'll kick that one if I can find it.

{Edited:} Now that I'm serveral hours late, here's the thread I was looking for:

Thu May 23, 2024: SCOTUS rulings to come tomorrow morning.

LIVE
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 23
By SCOTUSblog on May 23 at 12:00 a.m.



On Thursday, May 23, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term.

Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.

Posted in Featured, Live

Recommended Citation: SCOTUSblog , Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 23, SCOTUSblog (May. 23, 2024, 12:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-may-23/

Ellena Erskine
Mod
09:44
Good morning, all! Thanks for joining us for another opinion day. We're expecting the opinion announcements to start at 10 a.m. EDT.

Amy HoweMod replied Bill

What's are the odds we will get the Trump Immunity Decision today?

I think it's still pretty low. It has been just under a month since the oral argument -- which, to be fair, is the same amount of time that the justices took to release the opinion in the Colorado ballot case, but the justices are likely to be more divided and the justices did not seem to be in as much of a hurry to hear argument in the csae.

Five-minute buzzer just sounded.

Two boxes today!

Amy HoweMod replied Jeremy Pierce
How many decisions are extant?

Somewhere around 37. It depends on whether the justices issue one or two opinions for some cases/issues that are closely related -- for example, do they issue one or two for the NetChoice cases, which involve different laws but similar issues?

Two boxes means we're likely to get somewhere in the 3-4 opinions range, depending on how long the opinions are.

We should know more today about opinion days next week. Presumably they will issue opinions on Thursday next week, but it's a question of whether we get opinions any other day.

The justices have issued opinions at this point from February, March, and even April, so almost anything is fair game at this point.

Heading into the press office now to wait for opinions. Back soon with the first one!

We have the first decision from Justice Jackson. Coinbase v. Suski.

It is unanimous, with a concurring opinion from Gorsuch.

Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:02 AM

Here’s the link

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:05 AM

We have Alexander v. SC Conference of the NAACP. It is by Justice Alito.

The vote is 6-3.

Alito has a second case, Brown v. US. This is the final case of the day.

Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:07 AM
Here's the link

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:07 AM

The vote in this case also appears to be 6-3.

This is about the Armed Career Criminal Act and how to determine whether a state crime constitutes a "serious drug offense."

But going back to the SC gerrymandering case, which was a case about whether South Carolina’s Congressional District 1 violates the Constitution because it was the product of racial gerrymandering, as a three-judge district court concluded, when the state contends that the Republican-controlled legislature’s goal in enacting the map was instead to ensure that the district remained a safe one for Republicans.

The court in this case reverses the trial court in part and sends the case back for further proceedings.

Alito writes that the court has navigated the tension that results when there is a high correlation between race and partisan preference "by endorsing two related propositions." First, he says, the party challenging the constitutionality of the map must "disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship."

Second, he writes, "we start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith." Here, he says, the three-judge court that deemed the map unconstitutional "paid only lip service to these propositions. That misguided approach infected the District Court's findings of fact, which were clearly erroneous under the appropriate legal standard."

Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:13 AM
And here's the link for Brown:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-6389_6537.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:16 AM

Both sides in the dispute had asked the Supreme Court to rule by Jan. 1, 2024; when the justices had not done so by mid-March, the Republican legislators returned to the court, seeking to have the 2024 congressional elections go forward using the map that the lower court had deemed unconstitutional. But before the Supreme Court could rule on the legislators’ request, the lower court issued an order leaving the 2021 map in place for the 2024 elections.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Ignore their rulings

Lincoln did. They can't enforce most of what they say without executive power. Abbott and the 11th Circuit seems to understand this very well. That's why Texas attempts to reach into other states with their enforcement powers.

Everything is scrambled judicially right now. I don't think Roberts has a clue let alone any idea of what to do. He's like the old Fed criticism of "pushing on a string" with interest rates. When Roberts mumbles, nothing happens, and when nothing happens, nothing changes.

[sl8]

2. K & R & SCOTUSblog FAQs about opinion announcements:

https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/

FAQS: ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ORDERS AND OPINIONS

This page addresses some of the questions about orders and opinion announcements that we have commonly received during our live blogs.

ORDERS

Question: What do you mean by orders?
Answer: When we talk about orders or the order list, we are usually referring to the actions that the court took at its most recent conference, which are reflected in a document (the order list) that the court releases to the public. The most common orders are those granting or denying review on the merits in a particular case (known as granting or denying cert, short for certiorari), but the court may also issue other orders related to petitions for review or in pending merits cases — for example, an order granting or rejecting a request to participate in an oral argument.

Question: What do you mean by certiorari?
Answer: A petition for certiorari, or cert petition, is a document filed in the Supreme Court asking the justices to review a lower court’s ruling in a case. This comes most often on appeal from one of the federal courts of appeals or a state’s highest appellate court. A cert petition usually gives a narrative account of the dispute and the ruling(s) below, followed by an argument outlining why the justices should review that ruling. The Supreme Court generally waits until the opposing party — that is, the side that prevailed in the lower court — weighs in on whether the justices should review the decision, or instead waives its right to do so, before acting on the petition. The justices have full discretion over whether to review the ruling, formally known as granting the petition for certiorari — or granting cert, for short. Four justices must vote to grant cert for the Supreme Court to hear the case. Thousands of cert petitions are filed each term, and the vast majority are denied.

Question: What is a CVSG?
Answer: CVSG stands for “call for the views of the solicitor general.” In most cases in which someone is seeking review of a lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court will issue a straightforward grant or denial. But sometimes the court will instead ask the federal government for its views on what the court should do with a particular petition for review, particularly in cases in which the government isn’t a party but may still have an interest — for example, because the interpretation of a federal statute is involved. In this scenario, the court will issue an order in which it invites the U.S. solicitor general, the federal government’s chief lawyer before the Supreme Court, to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States.” It isn’t an invitation in the sense that the federal government gets to decide whether it wants to file a brief at all, because the court expects the government to file. There is no deadline by which the government is required to file the brief; when the brief is filed, the government’s recommendation, although not dispositive, will carry significant weight with the court.

[...]

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Thanks. I knew you had started a thread, but no matter how I searched, I couldn't find it.

I'm sorry, and good morning.

[sl8]

4. No, I hadn't started a thread on it today.

I did have the page open in a tab, kinda sorta thinking I might post it once the opinions were actually being released. It's about a 50/50 proposition whether I would have remembered.

So, well done, carry on smartly, and good morning to you, as well.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Well, someone did. Now I'm really confused. Not that there's anything out of the ordinary about that. NT