30 cases remain to be decided, a list of which can be found at the link (along with cases already decided).
2 scheduled opinion days remain, Thursday, June 13th and Thursday, June 20th. It is possible we could see extra opinion days added as soon as Tuesday. and we could very well see the term extended into the last week of June. I doubt they would release more than 5 opinions in a day, meaning that at least 6 opinion days are needed.
The top cases are Trump v United States, which, regardless of how they rule, will likely be the very last case announced, FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Loper Bright v Raimondo and SEC v Jarkesy.
There are a number of other important cases besides the listed cases.
Hopefully, we may start seeing some as soon as Tuesday.
My previous thread on Jarkesy, which for me is (along with Loper Bright which deals with Chevron deference) are the two most important cases of the term.
An unambiguous victory in Jarkesy would eliminate the SECâs inhouse tribunals altogether and force the SEC to prosecute these cases in the Article III Courts, where they belong. People have a Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial in Federal cases, as well as a Judge who is independent of the executive branch.
@Safiel is being so educated and on top of things all SC related part of your job or just a personal interest?
Each time I think I am getting more educated you post something that I have to go away and decode LOL. Bit like my grasp of economics and when @Gaius posts I scratch my head.
Particularly cases like SEC vs Jarkesy that have broad implications for the protection of individuals and companies from arbitrary application of regulating power of the State.
If Jarkesy wins, the SEC will still be able to regulate and enforce, but just in a forum where the defendant will have the protection of a neutral judge and the presence of a jury.
Trying to reach that balance that allows the government to regulate and enforce regulations, while at the same time protecting individuals from arbitrary use of that power.
Iâve been participating more in the Thomas discussions of the gifts heâs taken from someone with interests before the courts. And I donât think an important point has been raised in those posts.
First, let me say, I absolutely think a religious justice can hear and rule impartially based on the constitution. And I feel the same about political leanings. All people have religious and political views, and they doesnât prevent you from being as impartial as possible in a court of law.
But the Thomas stuffâŚeven if we are to believe $4,000,000 in gifts (or cut it in halfâŚor in half again! Itâs a lot of money in gifts) wonât affect the jurists impartiality, itâs important to avoid the APPEARENCE of impropriety because that appearance can cast doubt.
IOW, maybe Thomas is perfectly impartial. Maybe he doesnât think at all about those gifts when making his ruling. Maybe heâs perfect in that senseâŚbut the minute there is a decision that someone disagrees with, the appearance of impropriety allows for a bit of doubt and that undermines the confidences in the court.
I donât think weâve discussed that in the other threads.
9 to 0, by Thomas, that the Patent and Trademark Office may refuse to register âTrump too smallâ as a trademark under the nameâs clause of the Lanham Act, as disparaging a living person, without violating the First Amendment.
No. But the minute he votes FOR Crow, the critics have something to scream about, which undermines the integrity of the court.
Youâll be able to diagree with Kav, or Kagen, or Jackson, or Barret, but you wonât be able to say âhuhâŚyou ruled for some one who gave you millionsâŚâ
Avoid even the appearence shuts down the converstion and preserves the courts reputation.
all a bunch of crap. Thomas has shown his integrity already by voting against Croweâs interest so far twice and not voting for his interests even once. Will he? No he wonât, because no matter which way he votes it will have nothing to do with Croweâs interests and only be based on the merits of the case. Oh, Iâm sure you will howl and set your hair ablaze⌠and I will laugh.
A simple but important decision requiring that the NLRB satisfy the four traditional factors of legal equity before obtaining a preliminary injunction. This will restrain the current practice of giving the NLRB injunctions pretty much on demand.
