SCOTUSblog: LIVE Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 23

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2022, 09:59 AM - Edit history (2)

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/

Here we go again. I don't think today will be D-Day. I think that will get saved for next week, or even July.

Expect over 20,000 listeners online as the account delivers the news.

The second illustration is not what it looks like outside the Supreme Court this morning. It's cool and raining.

LIVE

Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 23

By Angie Gou
on Jun 23, 2022 at 12:00 am

On Thursday, June 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.

{snip}

Recommended Citation: Angie Gou, Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 23, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 23, 2022, 12:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-23/

https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC

[Novara]

1. I think today will be D-Day

They don't have announcements on the schedule next week, so unless they add additional dates for announcements next week, it's today or tomorrow.

I think they're assholes enough to announce the most awful decisions today, before the hearing, to try to take the thunder from the hearing. Because today's hearing will be huge.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Four minutes. Take your places, people.

The blog is now up and running. This comment showed up:

Let's get a few things out there. First, we are expecting opinions today and tomorrow. But with 13 decisions left to release, I expect (and, again, I don't have any inside knowledge) that we will go into next week -- that is, tomorrow will not be the last day.

https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Want a double dose of SCOTUS analysis?

Want a double dose of SCOTUS analysis? Use one screen to follow our live blog on http://scotusblog.com; use another screen to stream
@katieleebarlow
's live dispatch on
@SCOTUSblog
TikTok.

Good morning from a gross and rainy Supreme Court where we’re expecting at least one (but probably more) opinions at 10:00 a.m. ET.

I’ve got my chair + umbrella ready to live stream the announcement on @SCOTUSblog TikTok. I’ll also be on with ⁦@fox5dc⁩ morning crew at 9.

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. We have the first opinion, and it is Berger v. NC NAACP.

Hat tip, Amy Howe and Ellena Erskine

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf

It is by Justice Gorsuch, and the vote is 8-1, with Sotomayor dissenting.

The question in this case was whether a pair of Republican legislators in North Carolina can intervene to defend the state’s voter-ID law when the state’s Democratic attorney general is already defending the law.

The answer is yes.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. We have Nance v. Ward.

Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-439_bp7c.pdf

It is by Justice Kagan, and it is 5-4.

Barrett dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. If you're on death row and think your method of execution is unconstitutional, you can file a civil

suit that requests another method that is "less cruel" even if it's not authorized by state law.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Vega v. Tekoh

Here's the link, Vega v. Tekoh: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

It is by Justice Alito, and the vote is 6-3.

Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor.

Can two opinions by the same justice be issued in one day?

I get the seniority think but can two opinions written by the same justice be released on the same day?

That is only Alito's 4th opinion of the term. Safe to say he has at least 2 more to release, including Dobbs if he kept it and there was no switch.

Justices can issue more than one opinion per day. But I believe that if Alito were to issue Dobbs today, it would come first because it has the lower case number. Vega is No. 21-499. Dobbs is No. 19-1392.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Can't sue for violation of federal civil rights if you're not Mirandized.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. And yes, you can get opinions by the same justice on the same day.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. We have Bruen.

It is by Justice Thomas, and it is 6-3.

Breyer dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

The court holds that New York's "proper-cause" requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Thomas says in the intro that the court is holding "that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.

135 page opinion

The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.

The court rejects the "two-part" approach used by the courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases. "In keeping with Heller," Thomas writes, "we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."

Justice Breyer refers to Uvalde and Buffalo. But Justice Alito has a retort regarding Buffalo.

The government will have to show, Thomas says, that a gun regulation "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

In this case, Thomas explains, nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public "with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."

Page 2 of Alito's concurrence is notable and troubling. He dismisses Breyer's recounting of mass shootings. "Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? ... The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that [Buffalo] perpetrator."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. Requiring "proper cause" to get a CC license violate the constitution.

[Johnny2X2X]

12. This is a very impactful ruling

Basically concealed carry at will throughout the country is now a right.

[FBaggins]

13. Awfully close to it

I suspect it's closer to "shall issue unless" but they could still require an application and review. The state just can't default to the permit not being issued unless they agree that you have a good reason.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Amy Howe writes, in the blog:

In a concurring opinion joined by the chief, Justice Kavanaugh writes that today's ruling "does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense." "In particular," he says, "the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes--known as 'shall-issue' regimes-- that are employed in 43 states."

[FBaggins]

18. She is so much faster at that than I am

Makes me feel like she gets some sort of embargoed pre-release (like other journalists get on some economic news). But I don't think the court does that.

I definitely couldn't do her job.

[Amishman]

15. It's a lot bigger than that, Strict Scrutiny for all 2nd A challenges

That was not established before, and places a burden on the government to make all gun laws as narrowly worded and impactful as possible. Sets the table for demolishing a lot of existing restrictions

[FBaggins]

20. That's not really as new as you might think

A DC circuit case (Wrenn) essentially ruled that way six or seven years ago and DC didn't appeal to SCOTUS specifically because they knew that they would lose (which would set precedent nationwide).

We've known this was coming for quite some time. NY fought a delaying action a couple of years ago by mooting a case to avoid a national precedent... but it was just a matter of time.

[roamer65]

19. If NY allows the ruling to go forward...

It becomes a “shall issue”, rather than a “may issue” state.

California is a “may issue” state as well.

NY and CA need to tell the court to shove this one up their asses.

[FBaggins]

21. Allow?

You appear to be under the impression that NY/CA have a choice in the matter.

They really don't.

[roamer65]

22. Yes they do.

They can repass the laws and keep the cycle going.

Or simply ignore the ruling like red states have with Roe v Wade.

[FBaggins]

23. Not how it works

Sorry.

[roamer65]

24. Watch NY legislature in special session do it.

I fully support them on it.

[FBaggins]

25. Feel free to ping me when you think it happens

Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

[roamer65]

26. If you think NY and CA are just going to "roll over" on it, you are wrong.

These states have a LOT of high powered attorneys who will slice and dice that ruling.

[AngryOldDem]

16. Roe will be the last decision announced.

So they can run to their bunkers and not have to deal with the fallout.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. No D-Day today

Amy Howe:

Just to reiterate: We are now finished for the day in terms of opinion releases. The justices issued four opinions today, leaving nine still to be decided. The justices will release more opinions tomorrow. We don't know which ones or how many, but I would guess that it will be fewer than nine, setting the stage for more opinion days next week. We could know today whether and when the opinion days next week will be. Take care, everyone, and have a good day!

Ellena Erskine:

Thank you all for joining us today. We had almost 35,000 people on. We'll be back tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. And check the site later today for coverage of all 4 cases.