4th (but not last) ruling, Pung v. Isabella County. Alito majority, unanimous on bottom line (only CT doesn't fully join). Held: 1. The proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the country’s history of tax sales. 2. The Court rejects Pung’s argument that the County violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by failing to compensate him for his property’s fair market value.
5th and last, Blanche v. Lau. Held: Held: The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. 6-3, libs in dissent.
1st #SCOTUS ruling today, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe. ACB majority, 6-3. Held: 1. Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. 2. The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which contains an express cause of action against someone who “subjects” another to torture, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
Supreme Court's first ruling today: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
KBJ unanimous: Held: To determine whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission; the Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim.
That's KBJ's 6th (and probably last) majority opinion for the term. All unanimous, all in low-tier cases--a reflection of the sort of assignments that a junior justice in ideological minority receives.
As expected, this is a crazy filing. Virginia makes two arguments in support of its request for an emergency stay. 1. It contends that the state supreme court's interpretation of the Virginia constitution is "predicated ... on a grave misreading of federal law." But the court merely cited a Supreme Court case as informative on, and supportive of, the general meaning of "election." This comes nowhere close to meeting the high bar of showing that the court ruled on a federal question. 2. Invoking the narrow exception left open in Moore v. Harper (2023), it contends that the court's ruling so “transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that it arrogated to itself the power vested in the state legislature to regulate federal elections.” But no justice is going to find the court's ruling manifestly bonkers.
Look for this stay application to be denied without any dissent.
Very weird that cover page states "On Emergency Application to the Supreme Court of Virginia." That's the styling for a petition for a writ of certiorari, but it makes no sense to say that the emergency application is "to" the Supreme Court of Virginia.
THREAD. Schedule allowing, I’ll listen in on today’s birthright-citizenship case and live-tweet exchanges that strike me as interesting. I’ll be especially eager to see whether some of the conservative justices signal a disposition to rule against Trump on statutory grounds (and not to reach the constitutional question).
The argument is scheduled for 1 hour, but will likely run much longer (maybe 2-1/2 to 3 hours). Solicitor General John Sauer is up first, then ACLU’s Cecillia Wang, then Sauer’s rebuttal.
CT (softball): How does Citizenship Clause respond to Dred Scott? How read rest of clause re state citizenship?
SG Sauer: Main object was to overrule Dred Scott, establish citizenship of freed slaves and their children. Text of clause refers to "states in which they reside." Domicile test.
Trump v. Cook oral argument on president's power to remove Federal Reserve Board governor.
SG John Sauer for Trump, former SG Paul Clement for Cook.
(Not sure why it hasn't already started.)
Coming in late (technical glitch). Long question by SS on why Trump should get interim relief enabling him to remove Cook.
SG: There is no jurisdiction to restore public officer to office.
ACB on public interest factor on stay: Economists warn of recession.
SG: Market went up when she was removed.
ACB: I can't quantify risk, but doesn't that counsel caution? Do we weigh seriousness of alleged misconduct in stay posture?
SG: Appearance that Cook played fast and loose. Look at merits and stay factors. Traditional irreparable harms.
First Supreme Court ruling today: Berk v. Choy. Holding: Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.
ACB majority for 8. KBJ concurs in judgment.
Second ruling: Ellingburg v. U.S.
Holding: Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Unanimous opinion by Kavanaugh.