Share this page!

SCOTUSblog Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 Dec, 5 tweets, 2 min read
We will get multiple opinions today. 1st is Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt Assoc. SCOTUS reversed the 8th Cir. to hold that an Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates is not pre-empted by ERISA.

It's 8-0. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Next the court holds that prosecutions for rape against military service members were timely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in United States v. Briggs. Justice Alito writes for the full court, 8-0.

Still expecting at least one more opinion.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Justice Breyer for the 8-0 court in Carney v. Adams declining to decide the merits of a 1st Amendment challenge to Delaware's judicial selection process and finding that the challenge lacked legal standing.

At least one more opinion coming.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
SCOTUS says Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows individuals to seek money damages from individual federal employees. Practicing Muslims had sued under RFRA claiming that federal agents placed them on the No Fly List for refusing to be gov informants. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
All four opinions today were unanimous, 8-0. Justice Barrett did not participate because they were argued before she joined the court.

That’s it for now. No more opinions today.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog Profile picture
11 Dec
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
In a very brief order, the court says Texas lacks Article III standing to sue other states over how they conduct their own elections. In layperson's words: a state has no valid interest, under the Constitution, in attempting to police other states' voting procedures.
The separate statement from Alito/Thomas is based on their view (not shared by a majority of the court) that SCOTUS is obligated to take up any case that invokes the court's "original jurisdiction." It's a technical issue and says nothing about the underlying merits of the case.
Read 4 tweets
SCOTUSblog Profile picture
8 Dec
At 10 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will examine Facebook’s calling and texting capabilities in the context of a 1991 consumer protection law that bans robocalls. It’s a classic case of whether technology can outrun the language of the law.

Overview by @AmandaShanor. scotusblog.com/2020/12/case-p…
At 11 a.m. EST, the court will hear a case for the second time on a slightly different issue about the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act in a dispute between two dental companies.

A bit of deja vu in the case preview from Ronald Mann.

scotusblog.com/2020/12/case-p…
Listen live to both cases on C-SPAN beginning at 10 a.m. linked below.

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid: c-span.org/video/?477436-…

Henry Schein , Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.: c-span.org/video/?477437-…
Read 4 tweets
SCOTUSblog Profile picture
24 Nov
On Monday Nov. 30, SCOTUS will hear oral argument in Trump v. New York—a challenge to the Trump administration's plan to exclude people who are in the country illegally from the state-by-state breakdown used to allocate House seats.

We're featuring a symposium on the case.
First, here is @AHoweBlogger's case preview with everything you need to know about the case.

By the way, this is the second term in a row that the Supreme Court will hear argument in a major case involving Trump and the census.

scotusblog.com/2020/11/case-p…
You can access the symposium on Trump v. New York here: scotusblog.com/category/speci…
Read 4 tweets
SCOTUSblog Profile picture
10 Nov
Oral argument in California v. Texas -- the constitutional challenge to the ACA -- is about to begin. It's set for 80 minutes of argument time (but likely will go longer). You can listen live on C-SPAN: c-span.org/video/?471185-….

Follow this thread for live updates.
Arguing first is Michael Mongan, the solicitor general of California (which, along with other blue states, is defending the ACA). He says that, even if the court holds the mandate unconstitutional, Congress' intent is that the rest of the law should remain intact.
Chief Justice Roberts is the first to ask questions. He starts with the issue of standing (i.e., whether the challengers have the legal right to bring this suit). If the court finds no standing, it would avoid having to reach merits of the challenge.
Read 39 tweets
SCOTUSblog Profile picture
9 Nov
Tomorrow, SCOTUS will hear oral argument in California v. Texas—the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. There are three questions at issue. We've put together a symposium addressing each one.

You can access it here: scotusblog.com/category/speci…
Before deciding the legal merits of the challenge to the health law, SCOTUS must determine if it can even reach those questions. Do the challengers have standing to sue?

Katie Keith says no: scotusblog.com/2020/11/sympos…

@JoshMBlackman & @ishapiro say yes: scotusblog.com/2020/11/sympos…
Next question: Is the ACA's "individual mandate" (which states that most Americans must have insurance) constitutional? In 2012, SCOTUS upheld the mandate under Congress' taxing power, but Congress reduced the tax penalty to $0 in 2017. That change gave rise to the current case.
Read 5 tweets
SCOTUSblog Profile picture
14 Oct
So far this morning, Democrats are hammering the theme of voting rights. Both Feinstein and Leahy grill Barrett on her views on the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case in which the Supreme Court struck down part of the VRA.
Barrett's response to Sen. Leahy on the court's inability to enforce its judgments:

"The Supreme Court has no power, no force, no will, so it relies on the other branches to react to its judgments accordingly."
Under questioning from Sen. Leahy, Barrett declines to characterize the Constitution's emoluments clauses as "anti-corruption" measures. Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit alleging that Trump is violating the foreign emoluments clause.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @SCOTUSblog has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @SCOTUSblog!

Read all threads by @SCOTUSblog