SCOTUSblog: Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 28, 2024

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2024, 10:26 AM - Edit history (4)

It was so popular yesterday that they're going to do it again today.

LIVE
Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 28
By SCOTUSblog
on Jun 28, 2024 at 8:40 am



On Friday, June 28, 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.

141 online {Give it some time.}

Posted in Featured, Live

Recommended Citation: SCOTUSblog , Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 28, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2024, 8:40 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-friday-june-28/

Amy HoweMod replied Zach
9:55 AM

What is a relist? Heard that term before.
This means that instead of granting or denying a petition for review, the court "relists" it -- puts it back on the list to consider it again on the next conference. We pay a lot of attention to them now because a while back (it seems like just yesterday but has probably been more like 10 years ago) the court adopted a general practice of only granting petitions for review after they had been considered at one or more conferences (i.e., relisted at least once). From the court's perspective, my understanding is that they use the extra week to vet the case to make sure that there are no procedural problems that would keep the court from reaching the merits of the case. But from a reporter's perspective, it makes it much easier to predict which cases the court is likely to grant.

Five-minute buzzer.

Waiting on a box count.

Super quiet waiting on a box count

Two boxes, the word is.

That means we are likely to get a max of four opinions.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:01 AM

We have the first opinion -- Grants Pass v. Johnson. It is by Justice Gorsuch, and the vote is 6-3 with Sotomayor dissenting, joined by Jackson and Kagan.

The Ninth Circuit is reversed and the decision is remanded.

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:22 AM

We have the Chevron cases.

They are by the Chief.

Chevron is overruled.

The vote is 6-3 (although 6-2 in Loper-Bright because Jackson is recused). Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson as it applies to Relentless, from which she is not recused.

Like the affirmative action cases, the court did this as one opinion.

The question in this case was whether to overrule the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. As I mentioned, the court today does overrule Chevron.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. SCOTUS is going into July, destroying executive agency powers along the way

SCOTUS is going into July, destroying executive agency powers along the way
In SEC and EPA decisions, the SCOTUS conservatives are on a "power grab," Justice Sotomayor told us in dissent. Also: We got the EMTALA disposition.

CHRIS GEIDNER
JUN 27, 2024

{snip}

Taking two hammers to executive agencies

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch made it more difficult for the federal government to operate on Thursday.

In one case, the conservatives — against Sotomayor’s strident dissent for the liberal justices — blocked administrative agencies in many instances from acting administratively to enforce the law. How many instances? Roberts demurs on that point. ... In another case, the conservatives — against Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s strong dissent for herself and the liberal justices — made it easier for opponents of new regulations to block them from going into effect while litigation is ongoing. How much easier? Since Gorsuch doesn’t even acknowledge that’s what he’s doing, we don’t know.

The 6-3 decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy could upend the ability of executive agencies to enforce decades of law, forcing them to bring virtually any enforcement actions that seek fines in court. The opinion by Roberts holds that such a decision is required under the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial.

Roberts reached this result by focusing intensely the remedy — i.e., the fine — which he holds is “all but dispositive.” As such, he wrote, the Seventh Amendment jury right applies in George Jarkesy Jr.’s case — levied a $300,000 penalty in a securities fraud enforcement action — unless the “public right” exception applies. Although Sotomayor highlighted a problem even with that, his treatment of the “public right” exception is perhaps even more troubling because, in claiming it was avoiding an inappropriate expansion of the exception, his opinion ultimately further — and perhaps substantially — restricted it.

{snip}