Sorry

This feed does not validate.

In addition, interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: https://feeds.feedburner.com/scotusblog/pFXs

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
  2. xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  3. xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  4. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  5. xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
  6. xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  7. xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
  8. >
  9.  
  10. <channel>
  11. <title>SCOTUSblog</title>
  12. <atom:link href="https://www.scotusblog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  13. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/</link>
  14. <description>Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court</description>
  15. <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:14:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  16. <language>en-US</language>
  17. <sy:updatePeriod>
  18. hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
  19. <sy:updateFrequency>
  20. 1 </sy:updateFrequency>
  21. <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
  22.  
  23. 
  30. <item>
  31. <title>The morning read for Thursday, April 18</title>
  32. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18/</link>
  34. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ellena Erskine]]></dc:creator>
  35. <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
  36. <category><![CDATA[Round-up]]></category>
  37. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316065</guid>
  38.  
  39. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Thursday, April 18" title="The morning read for Thursday, April 18" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read: Supreme Court makes it easier to sue for job discrimination over forced transfers (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press) The Supreme...</p>
  40. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18/">The morning read for Thursday, April 18</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  41. ]]></description>
  42. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Thursday, April 18" title="The morning read for Thursday, April 18" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18%2F&#038;title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Thursday%2C%20April%2018" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Thursday, April 18">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:</p>
  43. <ul>
  44. <li><a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sex-discrimination-st-louis-police-bbb4c4bb97fceabfa8ddb66c2024d9f0">Supreme Court makes it easier to sue for job discrimination over forced transfers</a> (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)</li>
  45. <li><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-asks-what-enron-has-to-do-with-january-6th-and-trump">The Supreme Court Asks What Enron Has to Do with January 6th—and Trump</a> (Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker)</li>
  46. <li><a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/education-transition/2024/04/17/will-the-supreme-courts-gi-bill-ruling-mean-more-money-for-vets/">Will the Supreme Court’s GI Bill ruling mean more money for vets?</a> (Leo Shane III, Military Times)</li>
  47. <li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2024/04/18/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-secret-conservative-funders/">The Gaping Hole In Supreme Court Rules For Tracking Links Between Litigants And Influence Groups</a> (Shawn Musgrave, The Intercept)</li>
  48. <li><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fetal-personhood-fight-underlies-supreme-court-abortion-case">Fetal Personhood Fight Underlies Supreme Court Abortion Case</a> (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law)</li>
  49. </ul>
  50. <p class="p1">&nbsp;</p>
  51. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-18/">The morning read for Thursday, April 18</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  52. ]]></content:encoded>
  56. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  57. </item>
  58. <item>
  59. <title>Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity</title>
  60. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/</link>
  62. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Amy Howe]]></dc:creator>
  63. <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
  64. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  65. <category><![CDATA[Merits Cases]]></category>
  66. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316051</guid>
  67.  
  68. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity" title="Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" />In the final argument scheduled for its 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court will hear argument on Thursday in former President Donald Trump’s historic bid for criminal immunity. The question before the justices is whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to...</p>
  69. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/">Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  70. ]]></description>
  71. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity" title="Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&amp;linkname=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&amp;linkname=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&amp;linkname=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&amp;linkname=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&amp;linkname=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity%2F&#038;title=Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bid%20for%20criminal%20immunity" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity">Share</a></p><p>In the final argument scheduled for its 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court will hear argument on Thursday in former President Donald Trump’s historic bid for criminal immunity. The question before the justices is whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The court’s answer will determine not only whether Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C., before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, originally scheduled for March 4 but now on hold, can go forward, but also whether the former president’s trials in Florida and Georgia can proceed.</p>
  72. <p>Jury selection is currently underway in a Manhattan courtroom, where Trump is being tried on charges that he broke state law when he made a “hush money” payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels so that she would remain silent about her alleged affair with Trump as the 2016 presidential election approached. But Trump, the first president to be criminally prosecuted, was not yet president when the alleged conduct at the center of that case occurred.<span id="more-316051"></span></p>
  73. <p>Trump was indicted last summer on four counts arising from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump, the indictment contends, created “widespread mistrust … through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud” and then perpetrated three criminal conspiracies to target “a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.”</p>
  74. <p>Trump sought to have the charges against him thrown out, arguing that he is immune from prosecution because he was president. After <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24199164-12123-chutkan-ruling">Chutkan denied that request</a> in December, it was Smith <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/special-counsel-asks-justices-to-weigh-in-now-on-presidential-immunity/">who came to the Supreme Court</a>, asking the justices to weigh in on Trump’s claim to immunity without waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule on Trump’s appeal. The justices <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-wont-hear-trump-immunity-dispute-now/">denied that request</a> on Dec. 22.</p>
  75. <p>Six weeks later, <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf">the D.C. Circuit upheld Chutkan’s ruling</a> and rejected Trump’s immunity claims. It told Trump that its decision would go into effect (and that the criminal case against him could therefore go forward) on Feb. 12 unless he asked the Supreme Court to intervene by then.</p>
  76. <p>That meant it was <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/">Trump’s turn to go to the Supreme Court</a>, seeking to have the D.C. Circuit’s ruling put on hold so that he could file a petition for review of that decision. He stressed the importance of “thoughtful consideration,” while Smith countered that Trump’s trial should be allowed to proceed without further delay.</p>
  77. <p>In a brief unsigned order two weeks later, the justices agreed to weigh in on whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time as president. The justices fast-tracked the case for argument during its April argument session, and it instructed the D.C. Circuit to keep its ruling on hold until the Supreme Court issues its decision.</p>
  78. <p>In his brief at the Supreme Court on the merits, Trump tells the justices that allowing the charges against him to go forward would pose “a mortal threat to the Presidency’s independence.” “The President cannot function,” Trump contends, “and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” because the threat of prosecution will hang over the president’s decision-making process. Trump cites a law review article by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who before becoming a judge worked in the George W. Bush White House, arguing that “a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.“ The same is true, Trump continues, “if that criminal investigation is waiting in the wings until he leaves office.”</p>
  79. <p>Trump maintains that a president can never be prosecuted for his official acts. He points first to a “long history” of an absence of prosecutions, notwithstanding what he characterizes as “ample motive and opportunity” – everything from the appointment by John Quincy Adams of Henry Clay as secretary of state “after Clay delivered the 1824 election to him in the House” to President Joe Biden’s “mismanagement of the southern border.”</p>
  80. <p>Immunity from criminal prosecution, Trump argues, also comes from the Constitution and the principle of the separation of powers. A provision known as the executive vesting clause gives the president the “executive power,” which, under the principle of separation of powers, courts cannot sit in judgment over, Trump observes. In the landmark <em><a href="https://casetext.com/case/marbury-v-madison">Marbury v. Madison</a></em> case, Trump continues, the Supreme Court ruled that courts can never review a president’s official acts. And in 1982, in <em><a href="https://casetext.com/case/nixon-v-fitzgerald">Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a></em>, the justices ruled that a president cannot be held liable for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” If courts cannot review the president’s official acts or hold him liable in civil courts, Trump continues, it must also be the case that he cannot face criminal charges for his official acts – which would result in a far greater intrusion on the president’s independence than allowing courts to enter civil orders against him.</p>
  81. <p>Trump also relies on another provision of the Constitution, known as the impeachment judgment clause, which provides that someone who is impeached and convicted can still be indicted, tried, and punished “according to Law.” This clause signals, Trump says, that a president can be criminally prosecuted only after he has first been impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate. Such a rule, Trump argues, strikes a balance between holding the president accountable for wrongdoing and “the mortal danger presented by political targeting of the” president.</p>
  82. <p>Finally, Trump urges the justices to reject another theory on which the court of appeals had relied – specifically, the idea that a president is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution if his conduct was purportedly motivated by a desire to stay in power illegally. Not only has the Supreme Court made clear that there is no role for courts in reviewing a president’s official actions, but it has also held that the purpose or motive behind the alleged misconduct does not play a role when determining whether an official is immune. “Worst of all,” Trump writes, “this approach risks creating the appearance of a gerrymandered ruling tailored to deprive only President Trump of immunity, while leaving all other Presidents untouched.”</p>
  83. <p>Smith pushes back against Trump’s suggestion that the case against him poses a “mortal threat” to the independence of the presidency. Instead, Smith tells the justices, the case “implicates two principles of paramount importance: the necessity of the effective functioning of the Presidency, and the equally compelling necessity of upholding the rule of law.”</p>
  84. <p>Stressing that Trump is “charged with crimes that, if proved at trial, reflect ‘an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government,’” Smith acknowledges that the Department of Justice has “long recognized” that <em>sitting</em> presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted because doing so would interfere with the operations of the executive branch. But that concern is no longer present with the prosecution of a former president, Smith stresses. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law — including the President.”</p>
  85. <p>Trump is asserting “a novel and sweeping immunity from the federal criminal laws that govern all citizens’ conduct,” Smith writes. But nothing in the Constitution, Smith insists, gives the president any power that would provide him with immunity from the federal criminal laws at issue in this case, barring fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and the denial of the right to vote.</p>
  86. <p>The fact that no former president has previously been prosecuted does not reflect an understanding that they can never be prosecuted, Smith writes, but “instead underscores the unprecedented nature of” Trump’s alleged conduct.</p>
  87. <p>All presidents, Smith emphasizes, were aware that they could be prosecuted for their official acts after they left office. Indeed, Smith notes, by accepting and offering a pardon, both former President Richard Nixon and then-President Gerald Ford effectively acknowledged that a former president could be prosecuted for his official acts.</p>
  88. <p>And although Trump suggests that modern presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could be criminally prosecuted for launching military or drone strikes overseas, he does not point to any criminal statutes that those presidents or others might have violated. To the contrary, Smith writes, those scenarios “involved quintessential exercises” of the president’s power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and efforts by Congress to intervene would “raise the sort of serious separation-of-power concerns that are absent here”&nbsp;</p>
  89. <p>The Supreme Court’s decision in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457731/usrep457731.pdf">Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a></em>, holding that presidents are immune from civil lawsuits by private parties seeking damages, does not shield former presidents from federal criminal liability, Smith argues. There is a “far weightier interest in vindicating federal criminal law” in a case brought by the executive branch than a civil case brought by a private party, Smith contends. And while the justices in <em>Fitzgerald</em> were worried about the prospect that a flood of private civil suits would affect the president’s decision making, Smith observes that there are a variety of safeguards – ranging from grand juries to the burden of proof at trial and due process protections – to ensure that “prosecutions will be screened under rigorous standards and that no President need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities by the understanding that he is subject to prosecution if he commits federal crimes.”</p>
  90. <p>Smith also rejects Trump’s suggestion that criminal statutes do not apply to the president unless they say so specifically. “That radical suggestion,” Smith says, “which would free the President from virtually all criminal law — even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition — is unfounded.” The laws under which Trump has been charged are intended to cover everyone, Smith writes. And the Department of Justice has interpreted federal criminal statutes “to apply to the President unless doing so creates a serious risk of infringing the President’s constitutional powers” – which the laws at issue here would not, Smith adds.</p>
  91. <p>Nor does the Constitution require a president to be impeached and convicted by the Senate before he can face criminal charges as a former president. The impeachment judgment clause “expressly contemplates” criminal prosecutions, Smith notes, and simply makes clear that a federal official who is impeached and convicted can also be prosecuted; it does not require impeachment and conviction by the House and Senate as a requirement for criminal charges.</p>
  92. <p>Impeachment and prosecution play two different roles under the Constitution, Smith explains. Impeachment, he reasons, “is an inherently political process, not intended to provide accountability under the ordinary course of the law,” and Congress may opt not to impeach or convict a president “for reasons that have little or no connection to the nature of the evidence or the officer’s culpable conduct.” On the other hand, Smith suggests, criminal prosecution “is based on facts and law, and is rigorously adjudicated in court.”</p>
  93. <p>Finally, Smith concludes, even if the Supreme Court concludes that a former president has some immunity from prosecution for his official acts, there should be no immunity for the kind of charges involved in this case, involving “efforts to subvert an election in violation of the term-of-office clause of Article II and the constitutional process for electing the President.” Indeed, Smith stresses, Trump’s “concern about chilling official conduct that violates” the Constitution “rings hollow because no President has” a constitutional “interest in using crimes to give himself a second term after an election he lost.” Moreover, Smith adds, the charges also rest on private conduct that is enough, standing alone, to support the charges.</p>
  94. <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2024/04/18/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>.&nbsp;</em></p>
  95. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/">Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  96. ]]></content:encoded>
  100. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Trumpimmunity-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  101. </item>
  102. <item>
  103. <title>The morning read for Wednesday, April 17</title>
  104. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17/</link>
  106. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ellena Erskine]]></dc:creator>
  107. <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
  108. <category><![CDATA[Round-up]]></category>
  109. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316042</guid>
  110.  
  111. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Wednesday, April 17" title="The morning read for Wednesday, April 17" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />The court expects to issue one or more opinions this morning in argued cases from the current term. Following the opinion announcements, the court will hear oral arguments in&#160;Thornell v. Jones. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy...</p>
  112. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17/">The morning read for Wednesday, April 17</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  113. ]]></description>
  114. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Wednesday, April 17" title="The morning read for Wednesday, April 17" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&#038;title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Wednesday, April 17">Share</a></p><p>The court expects to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/#:~:text=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017">issue one or more opinions</a> this morning in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/">argued cases from the current term</a>. Following the opinion announcements, the court will <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/#:~:text=U.S.%20Listen-,live,-.%C2%A0">hear oral arguments</a> in&nbsp;<em><a class="case-title" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/thornell-v-jones/">Thornell v. Jones</a>.</em> Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:</p>
  115. <ul>
  116. <li><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1245143434/supreme-court-january-6-arguments-fischer">Supreme Court gives skeptical eye to key statute used to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters</a> (Nina Totenberg, NPR)</li>
  117. <li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-january-6-rioters/index.html">Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s arguments over obstruction charge used against January 6 rioters</a> (John Fritze, Marshall Cohen, Tierney Sneed, &amp; Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN)</li>
  118. <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-misses-supreme-court-arguments-rcna147826">Justice Clarence Thomas misses Supreme Court arguments</a> (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)</li>
  119. <li><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/15/supreme-court-idaho-ban-transgender-care/72853682007/">Supreme Court, in an emergency order, lets Idaho enforce ban on transgender care</a> (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)</li>
  120. <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/us/supreme-court-anti-corruption-law.html">Supreme Court Poised to Cut Back Scope of Anti-Corruption Law</a> (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)</li>
  121. </ul>
  122. <p class="p1">&nbsp;</p>
  123. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-wednesday-april-17/">The morning read for Wednesday, April 17</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  124. ]]></content:encoded>
  128. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  129. </item>
  130. <item>
  131. <title>Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)</title>
  132. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17/</link>
  134. <dc:creator><![CDATA[SCOTUSblog]]></dc:creator>
  135. <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
  136. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  137. <category><![CDATA[Live]]></category>
  138. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316021</guid>
  139.  
  140. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)" title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />We live blogged as the court released opinions in two argued cases from the current term. The court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm...</p>
  141. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17/">Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  142. ]]></description>
  143. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)" title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17%2F&#038;title=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Wednesday%2C%20April%2017%20%28complete%29" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17/" data-a2a-title="Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)">Share</a></p><p>We live blogged as the court released opinions in two argued cases from the current term.</p>
  144. <ul>
  145. <li class="p1">The court held in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf"><span class="s1"><i>Muldrow v. City of St. Louis</i></span></a> that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but the harm does not have to be significant.</li>
  146. <li class="p1">And in <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-7386_10n2.pdf">McIntosh v. United States</a></em>, the court unanimously held that when a district court fails to comply with the requirement to enter a preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that does not preclude the district judge from later ordering forfeiture subject to review on appeal for harmlessness.</li>
  147. </ul>
  148. <p>Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/">here</a>&nbsp;for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.</p>
  149. <p><span id="more-316021"></span></p>
  150. <div class="arena-chat" data-publisher="scotusblog" data-chatroom="GA0G1UX" data-position="in-page">&nbsp;</div>
  151. <p><script async="" src="https://go.arena.im/public/js/arenachatlib.js?p=scotusblog&amp;e=GA0G1UX"></script><br />
  152. &nbsp;</p>
  153. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-april-17/">Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, April 17 (complete)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  154. ]]></content:encoded>
  158. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  159. </item>
  160. <item>
  161. <title>Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge</title>
  162. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/</link>
  164. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Amy Howe]]></dc:creator>
  165. <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
  166. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  167. <category><![CDATA[Merits Cases]]></category>
  168. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316033</guid>
  169.  
  170. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge" title="Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" />The Supreme Court on Tuesday was divided over whether charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks should stand. Joseph Fischer argued that the law he was charged with violating, which bars obstruction of an...</p>
  171. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/">Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  172. ]]></description>
  173. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge" title="Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge%2F&#038;title=Justices%20divided%20over%20Jan.%206%20participant%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20throw%20out%20obstruction%20charge" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/" data-a2a-title="Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday was divided over whether charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks should stand. Joseph Fischer argued that the law he was charged with violating, which bars obstruction of an official proceeding, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering involving a congressional inquiry or investigation, but it was not clear whether a majority of the justices agreed with him.</p>
  174. <p>Some justices expressed concerns that the government’s interpretation of the law could sweep in too much conduct, while others appeared to agree with the government that the law was intended as a “catchall” provision to cover all kinds of conduct. And still others appeared to propose a narrower reading of the statute that would still allow the charge against Fischer to stand. &nbsp;</p>
  175. <p>The court’s decision in Fischer’s case could affect charges against more than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants. It could also affect the proceedings in the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in a federal court in Washington, D.C. <span id="more-316033"></span></p>
  176. <p>Fischer was arrested in 2021 and charged with assaulting police officers. Prosecutors say that he urged rioters to “charge” and was part of the mob that pushed the police, but Fischer maintains that he was only inside the Capitol for a few minutes and was pushed into the police line by the crowd.</p>
  177. <p>Fischer was also charged with violating a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.”</p>
  178. <p>A federal district judge dismissed the charge under Section 1512(c)(2). U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols relied on another case involving a Jan. 6 defendant in which he had concluded that the provision only applies to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding because it is limited by the previous subsection, Section 1512(c)(1), which prohibits tampering with evidence “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”</p>
  179. <p>A federal appeals court reversed Nichols’ ruling and reinstated the charge against Fischer. Fischer came to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take up his case.</p>
  180. <p>Representing Fischer, Jeffrey Green told the justices that until the Jan. 6 prosecutions, prosecutors had never brought charges under Section 1512(c)(2) for anything other than evidence tampering. The government, he said, would convert Section 1512(c)(2) into a “dragnet.” There “are a host of” federal laws that cover the crimes committed on Jan. 6, Green asserted, but Section 1512(c)(2) is not one of them.</p>
  181. <div id="attachment_316035" style="width: 549px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-316035" class=" wp-image-316035" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-300x188.jpg" alt="" width="539" height="338" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-300x188.jpg 300w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-1024x642.jpg 1024w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-768x482.jpg 768w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-1536x964.jpg 1536w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-2048x1285.jpg 2048w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer2-700x439.jpg 700w" sizes="(max-width: 539px) 100vw, 539px" /><p id="caption-attachment-316035" class="wp-caption-text">U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues for the Department of Justice. (William Hennessy)</p></div>
  182. <p>Arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court to allow the charge to stand. She told the justices that, on Jan. 6, 2021, a “violent mob stormed the United States Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transition of power.” “Many of the rioters” that day, including Fischer, Prelogar said, “obstructed Congress&#8217;s work in that official proceeding.” Prelogar argued that Fischer’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) as limited to evidence tampering lacks any basis in the text of the statute.</p>
  183. <p>Justice Elena Kagan was one of the justices most resistant to Fischer’s argument. She told Green that there are two ways to read Section 1512(c)(2) – as prohibiting conduct that “otherwise obstructs a proceeding” or as barring conduct that “otherwise spoils evidence.” Although Fischer suggests that the second interpretation is the correct one, Kagan observed, nothing in the statute supports such a reading. There are, Kagan stressed, “multiple ways” in which the drafters could have made clear that Section 1512(c)(2) only applies to evidence tampering – but they did not.</p>
  184. <p>Chief Justice John Roberts, however, read the statute differently. He noted that just last week, in <em>Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries</em>, the court had reiterated that a general catchall phrase at the end of a statute is “controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it.” Applied to this case, Roberts contended, it should mean that Section 1512(c)(2) “should involve something that’s capable of alteration, destruction, and mutilation.” That interpretation, Roberts suggested, “responds to some of the concerns that have been raised about how broad (c)(2) is.”</p>
  185. <p>When Green repeated his argument that the government’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) “is so broad that it would cover almost anyone who does something understanding that what they are doing is wrong in some way that” obstructs an official proceeding, Kagan pushed back. Section 1512(c)(2), Kagan emphasized, was “meant to function as a backstop.” Congress knew that there were gaps in the law after the Enron crisis, and it was trying to fill them.</p>
  186. <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, expressed concern about the potential breadth of the statute under the government’s interpretation, asking Prelogar whether Section 1512(c)(2) could also apply to a sit-in at a trial, someone who pulled a fire alarm before a congressional vote, or a heckler in the Supreme Court’s gallery.</p>
  187. <p>Prelogar responded that if the perpetrator intended to obstruct an official proceeding and had “corrupt intent” in doing so, then he could be charged under Section 1512(c)(2). But that was a “high bar,” she emphasized. In response to a similar question from Justice Samuel Alito, who observed that the justices had seen “a number of protests in the courtroom,” she added that the law would not apply to “minor interferences.” And she assured the justices that although the federal government “charged over 1,350 defendants” in connection with the Jan. 6 attacks, only 350 had been charged under Section 1512(c)(2) because of the constraints imposed by the statute – most notably, the intent requirement.</p>
  188. <p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor was unconvinced by Green’s suggestion that the dearth of earlier prosecutions relying on Section 1512(c)(2) demonstrated that it was not intended to apply as broadly as the government contends. “We’ve never had” a scenario like the Jan. 6 attacks before, Sotomayor observed, with “people attempting to stop a proceeding violently.”</p>
  189. <p>But other justices were more sympathetic to this argument. Justice Clarence Thomas told Prelogar that “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings.” Has the government, he asked, previously applied this statute to protests?</p>
  190. <p>Prelogar told the justices that Section 1512(c)(2) has been enforced “in a variety of prosecutions that don’t focus on evidence tampering,” but she acknowledged that she was not aware of any situation involving similar violence.</p>
  191. <p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical about the need for the government to rely on Section 1512(c)(2) at all. Observing that Fischer had been indicted on six other counts, he asked Prelogar, “why aren’t those six counts good enough?”</p>
  192. <p>Prelogar countered that those counts “don’t fully reflect the culpability” of Fischer’s conduct. One of the “root problems” of Fischer’s conduct, she said, was his intent to stop the certification of the vote, and so it is “entirely appropriate” to try to hold him accountable.</p>
  193. <p>Kavanaugh was not mollified. He noted that Section 1512(c)(2) carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, and wondered aloud whether the government might have brought charges against Fischer and other Jan. 6 defendants under the provision to increase their sentences.</p>
  194. <p>Prelogar acknowledged that the maximum sentence under Section 1512(c)(2) is longer than for the other charges, but she said emphatically that there is “no reasonable argument to be made that the statutory maximum is driving” charging decisions. The sentencing range for assault, with which Fischer was also charged, is actually higher than for Section 1512(c)(2).</p>
  195. <p>Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that even if the court were to reject the government’s broad interpretation, Section 1512(c)(2) might still apply to Fisher. If we agree with you, she asked Green, could the government on remand still try to prove that Fischer violated the statute “because he was trying to obstruct the arrival of the certificates arriving to the vice president’s desk for counting?”</p>
  196. <p>Green conceded that such a question was a “closer” call, but he maintained that in Section 1512(c)(2) Congress only meant to target conduct that actually changed documents in a way that affected their integrity.</p>
  197. <p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson later echoed Barrett’s point, positing that Section 1512(c)(2) could be interpreted to “prohibit the corrupt tampering with things that are used to conduct an official proceeding with the intent of undermining the integrity of the thing and thereby obstructing the proceeding.” She outlined a scenario in which someone steals the envelope containing the electoral votes on its way to the vice president’s desk.</p>
  198. <p>When Green called that hypothetical “harder” but noted that it was “certainly not what happened” in Fischer’s case, Jackson suggested that the court could send the case back to the lower court for it to apply the new standard.</p>
  199. <p>Prelogar later told Jackson that the charge against Fischer “would likely be viable” even under that narrower interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2). “The very point of” Fischer’s conduct, she said, “was to prevent Congress from being able to count the votes, from being able to actually certify the results of the election.”</p>
  200. <p>During his rebuttal, Green sought to hammer down on the concerns that the justices expressed during the nearly two-hour argument about the precedent a decision here might set for future cases. Prelogar, he said, had agreed that Section 1512(c)(2) could apply to peaceful protests as long as prosecutors can show intent and a connection to the official proceedings. The federal government “wants to unleash” a potential 20-year sentence on peaceful protesters, which will chill activities protected by the Constitution. That is, he argued, “a very serious tool to put in the hands of prosecutors.”</p>
  201. <p>A decision in the case is expected by summer.</p>
  202. <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2024/04/16/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>.</em></p>
  203. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/">Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  204. ]]></content:encoded>
  208. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fischer-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  209. </item>
  210. <item>
  211. <title>Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts</title>
  212. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts/</link>
  214. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronald Mann]]></dc:creator>
  215. <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
  216. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  217. <category><![CDATA[Merits Cases]]></category>
  218. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316027</guid>
  219.  
  220. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Banner211101-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts" title="Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />As securities cases go, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners is a simple one. The case involves Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, that rule creates a private cause of action whenever a company omits material facts in connection with...</p>
  221. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts/">Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  222. ]]></description>
  223. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Banner211101-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts" title="Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&amp;linkname=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fjustices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts%2F&#038;title=Justices%20limit%20securities%20liability%20for%20omission%20of%20material%20facts" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts/" data-a2a-title="Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts">Share</a></p><p>As securities cases go, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/macquarie-infrastructure-corp-v-moab-partners-l-p/"><em>Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners</em></a> is a simple one. The case involves Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, that rule creates a private cause of action whenever a company omits material facts in connection with a securities transaction, if that omission would render any “statements made” by the company misleading.</p>
  224. <p>The issue in the case is what to do about an omission that does not make anything that the company has said misleading. Here, for example, the company (Macquarie Infrastructure) had an obligation under a different SEC regulation to disclose material information about the company in its periodic filings with the SEC. Specifically, one of Maquarie’s principal assets is storage terminals for fuel oil, and a United Nations rule related to climate change is phasing out fuel oil with a high-sulfur content, for which some of those terminals were designed. Because the other SEC rule (Item 303 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K) required the firm to disclose material information, investors (including Moab partners) sued Macquarie arguing that its failure to disclose information required by Item 303 violated Rule 10b-5. The lower court agreed, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s succinct opinion for a unanimous court disagreed.<span id="more-316027"></span></p>
  225. <p>Sotomayor starts by explaining that Rule 10b-5 “accomplishes two things.” First, “[i]t prohibits … false statements or lies,” something not at issue here. Second, “[i]t also prohibits omitting a material fact necessary ‘to make statements made … not misleading.’” Her analysis turns on the distinction between a “pure omission” and a “half-truth.” For Sotomayor, a pure omission is “when a speaker says nothing, in circumstances that do not give any particular meaning to that silence.” By contrast, quoting an earlier decision on the topic, she explains that “[h]alf-truths … are ‘representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information.’” Trying to bring the distinction down to earth, she summarizes: “[T]he difference between a pure omission and a half-truth is the difference between a child not telling his parents he ate a whole cake and telling them he had dessert.”</p>
  226. <p>She then explains that Rule 10b-5 “does not proscribe pure omissions,’ because it only “requires disclosure of information necessary to ensure that statements already made are clear and complete (i.e., that the dessert was, in fact, a whole cake).” Parsing the rule, she points out that “by its plain text, the Rule requires identifying affirmative assertions (i.e., ‘statements made’) before determining if other facts are needed to make those statements ‘not misleading.’” Looking more broadly, she observes that other provisions of the securities laws (Section 11 of the Securities Act in particular) do proscribe pure omissions, pointing to that section’s prohibition of any registration statement that “omit[s] to state a material fact required to be stated therein.” For Sotomayor the absence of any “similar language in … Rule 10b-5 … is telling.” Accordingly, she concludes, “[p]ure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).”</p>
  227. <p>Although the decision did resolve a conflict among the federal courts of appeals, it is not entirely clear how important it will be. Here, for example, it is not clear that the plaintiffs could not revise their complaint to allege that the information in Macquarie’s periodic filings in fact was misleading without disclosure of the adverse UN rule. Only time, and the imagination of the lawyers who represent securities plaintiffs, will tell.</p>
  228. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-limit-securities-liability-for-omission-of-material-facts/">Justices limit securities liability for omission of material facts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  229. ]]></content:encoded>
  233. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Banner211101-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  234. </item>
  235. <item>
  236. <title>The morning read for Tuesday, April 16</title>
  237. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16/</link>
  239. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ellena Erskine]]></dc:creator>
  240. <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
  241. <category><![CDATA[Round-up]]></category>
  242. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316019</guid>
  243.  
  244. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Tuesday, April 16" title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 16" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />The court expects to issue one or more opinions this morning in argued cases from the current term. Following the opinion announcements, the court will hear oral arguments in&#160;Fischer v. U.S. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy...</p>
  245. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16/">The morning read for Tuesday, April 16</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  246. ]]></description>
  247. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Tuesday, April 16" title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 16" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&#038;title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 16">Share</a></p><p>The court expects to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16/">issue one or more opinions</a> this morning in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/">argued cases from the current term</a>. Following the opinion announcements, the court will <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/#:~:text=U.S.%20Listen-,live,-.%C2%A0">hear oral arguments</a> in&nbsp;<a class="case-title" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fischer-v-united-states/">Fischer v. U.S.</a> Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:</p>
  248. <ul>
  249. <li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/deray-mckesson-first-amendment-supreme-court/index.html">Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Black Lives Matter organizer facing damages suit</a> (John Fritze, CNN)</li>
  250. <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-weighs-jan-6-rioters-obstruction-challenge-affect-trumps-rcna147841">Supreme Court weighs Jan. 6 rioter&#8217;s obstruction challenge, which could affect Trump&#8217;s case</a> (Lawrence Hurley &amp; Ryan J. Reilly, NBC News)</li>
  251. <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/16/supreme-court-obstruction-jan-6-00152406">Supreme Court takes its deepest plunge into Jan. 6, with possible implications for Trump</a> (Kyle Cheney &amp; Josh Gerstein, Politico)</li>
  252. <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/politics/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction.html">Supreme Court’s Review of Jan. 6 Charge Has Already Freed Some Rioters</a> (Alan Feuer, The New York Times)</li>
  253. <li><a href="https://apnews.com/article/grants-pass-oregon-supreme-court-homeless-encampments-a8dcddb518bd76b11d409666c06701b8">Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court</a> (Claire Rush, The Associated Press)</li>
  254. </ul>
  255. <p><strong>Coming up</strong>: On Wednesday, April 17, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We&#8217;ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.&nbsp;</p>
  256. <p class="p1">&nbsp;</p>
  257. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-16/">The morning read for Tuesday, April 16</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  258. ]]></content:encoded>
  262. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner201130-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  263. </item>
  264. <item>
  265. <title>Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)</title>
  266. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16/</link>
  268. <dc:creator><![CDATA[SCOTUSblog]]></dc:creator>
  269. <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
  270. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  271. <category><![CDATA[Live]]></category>
  272. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316015</guid>
  273.  
  274. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)" title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />We live blogged as the court released opinions in two cases from the current term. The court ruled 7-2 in Rudisill v. McDonough that servicemembers who, through separate periods of service, accrue benefits under both the Post-9/11 Veterans Act and the Montgomery GI Bill, can...</p>
  275. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16/">Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  276. ]]></description>
  277. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)" title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&amp;linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16%2F&#038;title=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2016%20%28complete%29" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16/" data-a2a-title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)">Share</a></p><p>We live blogged as the court released opinions in two cases from the current term.</p>
  278. <ul>
  279. <li class="p1">The court ruled 7-2 in <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf"><span class="s1">Rudisill v. McDonough</span></a></em> that servicemembers who, through separate periods of service, accrue benefits under both the Post-9/11 Veterans Act and the Montgomery GI Bill, can use either one, in any order, up to a 48-month aggregate cap.</li>
  280. <li class="p1">The court holds in <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf"><span class="s1">DeVillier v. Texas</span></a></em> that property owners whose land was flooded by the state&#8217;s actions to prevent flooding on a Houston highway can pursue their claims under the Constitution&#8217;s takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law. DeVillier had argued that he could pursue his action under the takings clause itself, but the Court holds that Texas law provides a cause of action.</li>
  281. </ul>
  282. <p>Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/">here</a>&nbsp;for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.</p>
  283. <p><span id="more-316015"></span></p>
  284. <div class="arena-chat" data-publisher="scotusblog" data-chatroom="HZc92AF" data-position="in-page">&nbsp;</div>
  285. <p><script async="" src="https://go.arena.im/public/js/arenachatlib.js?p=scotusblog&amp;e=HZc92AF"></script><br />
  286. &nbsp;</p>
  287. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-16/">Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 16 (complete)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  288. ]]></content:encoded>
  292. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  293. </item>
  294. <item>
  295. <title>Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors</title>
  296. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors/</link>
  298. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Amy Howe]]></dc:creator>
  299. <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
  300. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  301. <category><![CDATA[Emergency appeals and applications]]></category>
  302. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316004</guid>
  303.  
  304. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SC160329banner_r-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors" title="Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Idaho to temporarily enforce a state law criminalizing gender-transition care for minors against anyone who is not part of a lawsuit currently challenging that ban. In a brief order, the justices granted the state’s request to...</p>
  305. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors/">Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  306. ]]></description>
  307. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SC160329banner_r-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors" title="Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors%2F&#038;title=Court%20allows%20Idaho%20to%20generally%20enforce%20ban%20on%20gender-transition%20care%20for%20minors" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors/" data-a2a-title="Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Idaho to temporarily enforce a state law criminalizing gender-transition care for minors against anyone who is not part of a lawsuit currently challenging that ban. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf">In a brief order</a>, the justices granted the state’s request to limit the scope of an earlier order entered by a federal district court in Idaho, which had barred the state from enforcing the law at all while a challenge to its constitutionality continues.<span id="more-316004"></span></p>
  308. <p>The ruling was also noteworthy for the extent to which several members of the court aired their views – and their differences – on the court’s emergency docket, which has grown in both size and prominence in the past several years. Five of the court’s conservative justices either wrote or joined opinions agreeing with the court’s disposition of the state’s request, while two members of the court’s liberal bloc – Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor – dissented from the ruling.</p>
  309. <p>Justice Elena Kagan indicated, without explanation, that she would have denied the request. Only Chief Justice John Roberts did not publicly indicate how he had voted.</p>
  310. <p>The state enacted the law at the center of the dispute last year. The law, which was slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, makes it a crime for medical providers in the state to provide gender-transition surgeries, puberty blockers, or hormone therapy to transgender youths under the age of 18. The same treatments can be provided, however, for other purposes.</p>
  311. <p>Two transgender girls (along with their parents) who receive estrogen therapy went to federal court last May to challenge the law. Before the law could go into effect, U.S. District Judge J. Lynn Winmill temporarily blocked the state from enforcing any part of the law against anyone while the litigation continued.</p>
  312. <p>After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the state’s request to put the law on hold while it appealed, the state came to the Supreme Court on Feb. 16, asking the justices to narrow Winmill’s order so that it can enforce the law for everyone except the named challengers.</p>
  313. <p>Represented by Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst and (among others) by lawyers from the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, the state told the justices that as long as the law remains on hold, the state’s “vulnerable children” are exposed “to risky and dangerous medical procedures,” and “Idaho’s sovereign power to enforce its democratically enacted law” is infringed.</p>
  314. <p>The district court’s order blocking the state from enforcing the law in its entirety, the state contended, “goes far beyond any relief the plaintiffs needed or had standing to seek.” The challengers, the state continued, “both want access to a single procedure” – hormone therapy – “but the injunction applies to all 20+ procedures that the” law regulates, and it bars enforcement against people who are not part of the lawsuit.</p>
  315. <p>And indeed, the state added, five justices have suggested that the Supreme Court should decide whether the district court can put an entire state law on hold and prohibit the state from enforcing it against anyone, including people who are not part of the lawsuit.</p>
  316. <p>The challengers in the case, who are represented by the ACLU, urged the justices to stay out of the dispute. They noted that the court of appeals has fast-tracked the appeal on the broader question whether the law violates the Constitution, and that briefing in that appeal would be completed by March 26.</p>
  317. <p>But here, the challengers emphasized, the district court concluded that the Idaho law should be temporarily blocked in its entirety to make sure that the challengers can continue to receive care. Otherwise, they said, the two teenagers – who are proceeding anonymously – will have to reveal their identities whenever they seek care.</p>
  318. <p>Although the state may disagree with the district court’s conclusion, the challengers wrote, it is a “highly fact-bound question,” and there is no reason for the court to intervene and weigh in on “broader legal questions about whether courts have the power to issue relief in order to benefit non-parties.”</p>
  319. <p>Moreover, the challengers stressed, the district court’s order only applies in Idaho. It “does not tie the hands of any other judge in any other district, much less all judges nationwide.”</p>
  320. <p>Six weeks after the state filed its final brief in the case, the justices granted the state’s request to pare back the scope of the district court’s order, which will continue to allow the two challengers to receive hormone therapy.</p>
  321. <p>In a 13-page concurring opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch – a frequent critic of the kind of broad, or “universal,” injunctions entered by the district court in this case – explained that all of the factors that courts consider when deciding whether to grant temporary relief point in the state’s favor. The order entered by the district court, Gorsuch wrote, “purported to bar the enforcement of ‘any provision’ of the law against anyone … even though, by its own admission, the plaintiffs had failed to ‘engage’ with other provisions of Idaho’s law that don’t presently affect them.” Moreover, Gorsuch continued, the district court’s order would prohibit the state from enforcing indefinitely “portions of a statute that no party has shown, and no court has held, likely offensive to federal law.”</p>
  322. <p>Gorsuch conceded that the justices may have “seen a rise in the number of applications for interim relief.” But the lower courts’ failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s precedents and standards for emergency relief, Gorsuch suggested, may be the culprit behind that phenomenon. In this case, Gorsuch notes, “the district court’s universal injunction” barring the state from enforcing the law against anyone “effectively transformed a limited dispute between a small number of parties focused on one feature of a law into a far more consequential referendum on the law’s every provision as applied to anyone.” “Today,” Gorsuch concluded, “the Court takes a significant step toward addressing the problem.”</p>
  323. <p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own 13-page concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in which he focused on how the court should deal with emergency applications in cases – like this one – involving efforts to block enforcement of a new state or federal law. Kavanaugh noted that one factor that the justices often consider in deciding whether to grant emergency relief is the likelihood that the party seeking the relief will ultimately prevail on the merits. That determination, he explained, can be “consequential and difficult,” and it generally must be made on a tight timeline.</p>
  324. <p>Kavanaugh agreed with Gorsuch that a ban on universal injunctions “could somewhat reduce the number of emergency applications that make it to this Court and require the Court to assess the merits,” but he did not regard a ban as a complete panacea. Even a more limited injunction, he reasoned, “could still have widespread effect,” and – at least with federal laws – different parties could go to court in different parts of the country, potentially leading to disuniformity in a law’s enforcement. And if the court inevitably will have to weigh in on some emergency applications involving important new laws, he continued, it should “use as many tools as feasible and appropriate to make the most informed and best decision” – which may include additional briefing, oral argument, or granting review without waiting for the court of appeals to weigh in.</p>
  325. <p>In an eight-page opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson found “common ground” with her conservative colleagues, agreeing that “our emergency docket seems to have become increasingly unworkable.” But, she continued, she worried that “we may be too eager to find fault in everyone but ourselves.” Jackson urged her colleagues to exercise restraint in dealing with requests for emergency relief. “We do not have to address every high-profile case percolating in lower courts, and there are usually good reasons not to do so,” she posited.</p>
  326. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-allows-idaho-to-generally-enforce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors/">Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  327. ]]></content:encoded>
  331. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SC160329banner_r-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  332. </item>
  333. <item>
  334. <title>Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer</title>
  335. <link>https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/</link>
  337. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Amy Howe]]></dc:creator>
  338. <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
  339. <category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
  340. <category><![CDATA[Cases in the Pipeline]]></category>
  341. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.scotusblog.com/?p=316000</guid>
  342.  
  343. <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer" title="Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-500x500.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" />The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a Louisiana police officer against a leader of the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest at which the police officer was seriously injured. The court’s denial of review in Mckesson...</p>
  344. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/">Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  345. ]]></description>
  346. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer" title="Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-500x500.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&amp;linkname=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2024%2F04%2Fcourt-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer%2F&#038;title=Court%20declines%20to%20intervene%20in%20lawsuit%20against%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20organizer" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/" data-a2a-title="Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a Louisiana police officer against a leader of the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest at which the police officer was seriously injured. The court’s denial of review in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mckesson-v-doe-3/">Mckesson v. Doe</a></em> was part of a list of orders issued from the justices’ private conference last week.</p>
  347. <p>The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term. The court currently has only two cases slated for argument in the upcoming term – less than half of what they had granted at this time last year for the 2023-24 term.<span id="more-316000"></span></p>
  348. <p>At issue in <em>Mckesson</em> was whether DeRay Mckesson can be held responsible for the officer’s injuries when he did not directly harm the officer himself but instead organized the demonstration and, the officer said, “knew or should have known” that violence would result.</p>
  349. <p>The case is one with which the justices were already familiar. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowed the officer’s lawsuit to go forward. Mckesson then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he argued that the lawsuit against him was barred by the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep458/usrep458886/usrep458886.pdf">NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.</a></em>, which limited the NAACP’s liability for a nonviolent protest that it organized.</p>
  350. <p>In November 2020, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1108_7lh8.pdf">the court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit</a> with instructions to seek guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court on whether state law would in fact allow Mckesson to be held liable.</p>
  351. <p>After the Louisiana Supreme Court issued an opinion indicating that, under the facts alleged by the officer, a protest leader could be sued for negligence, a divided 5th Circuit issued a new opinion allowing the lawsuit to go forward. Doe had alleged, the majority wrote, that Mckesson had “organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter” the officer.</p>
  352. <p>Judge Don Willett dissented from the panel’s ruling. He agreed that Doe “deserves justice” and should be able to sue the person who actually injured him. But he rejected the idea that Doe can sue Mckesson, arguing that the theory on which the majority relied was “foreclosed — squarely — by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.”</p>
  353. <p>Mckesson returned to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to weigh in. But after considering the case at seven consecutive conferences, the justices denied review.</p>
  354. <p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a statement regarding the court’s decision to deny review. She noted that since the court of appeals issued its decision, the Supreme Court in <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r51_g3bi.pdf">Counterman v. Colorado</a></em> “made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of an objective standard like negligence for punishing speech, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as demanding a showing of intent.” Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim. Moreover, she added, the court of appeals should “give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding <em>Counterman</em>’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.”</p>
  355. <p>Over a dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justices also denied review in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/michaels-v-davis/">the case of Kurt Michaels</a>, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of JoAnn Clemmons, his girlfriend’s mother. Michaels’ petition for review focused on the admission of his confession, which came after he had invoked his <em>Miranda</em> rights.</p>
  356. <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrongly concluded that the admission of the confession was harmless, Jackson wrote, because other testimony corroborated the basic facts that Michaels detailed. “When an unconstitutionally obtained confession is wrongly presented to a jury,” Jackson emphasized, “our case law is clear that rather than treating that evidence as equivalent to a compilation of other, far less weighty means of proof, courts must carefully evaluate the confession as a whole” – which the court of appeals in this case, she asserted, failed to do.</p>
  357. <p>Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, also dissented from the denial of review in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/compton-v-texas/">the case of Dillion Compton</a>, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a prison guard. As his case came to the court, it centered on the prosecutors’ use of 13 of their 15 strikes to remove women from the initial jury pool, leaving the jury with four women and eight men. Prosecutors explained that they struck women based on their hesitations about imposing the death penalty. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Sotomayor suggested, used the wrong analysis: It should have conducted a side-by-side analysis of individual female jurors who were struck against male jurors who were allowed to serve, rather than looking at women as a group.</p>
  358. <p>The justices’ next private conference is Friday, April 19.</p>
  359. <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2024/04/15/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>.&nbsp;</em></p>
  360. <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/">Court declines to intervene in lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
  361. ]]></content:encoded>
  365. <post-thumbnail><url>https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Great-Hall-banner-150x150.jpg</url><width>150</width><height>150</height></post-thumbnail>
  366. </item>
  367. </channel>
  368. </rss>
  369.  

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms

 
Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda