Full list of pending Supreme Court cases, June will be busy and fun for Supreme Court watchers

Politics
1

Coming into June and the Supreme Court still has 29 cases pending with only four scheduled days to knock them out, Mondays (June 4, 11, 18, 25) So most likely we will be getting additional decisions days and likely before the final week. I would not be surprised if an extra decision day or days are added the week of the 18th as well as the week of the 25th.

4 of those cases are blockbuster cases and quite a few more are high profile cases, so it will be a very interesting upcoming month.

I would not be at all surprised if we get Masterpiece Cakeshop on Monday the 4th, as the Supreme Court likes to spread out blockbuster cases and M.C. has been pending since December. And if not M.C., then Gill v Whitford, which has been pending since October. And I believe the case we don’t get on the 4th will likely come on the 11th.

I believe that Trump v Hawaii will likely be the last decision announced this term.

I have listed all pending cases below.

October sitting: (1 case pending)

Gill v Whitford (Wisconsin redistricting)

November sitting: (0 cases pending)

Nothing

December sitting: (2 cases pending)

Carpenter v United States (4th Amendment cell phone records case)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Public accommodation v 1st Amendment)

January sitting: (4 cases pending)

Florida v Georgia (original jurisdiction water wars case)
Texas v New Mexico and Colorado (original jurisdiction water wars case)
Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute (Legality of Ohio’s voter list maintenance procedures)
Ortiz v United States (Appointments Clause case) (2 other cases joined to this case)

February sitting: (6 cases pending)

Currier v Virginia (Double jeopardy case)
Rosales-Mireles v United States (Standard for “plain error” review in criminal appeals)
Janus v American Federal of Federal, State and Municipal Employees (Constitutionality of agency shop arrangements)
Ohio v American Express (Are AMEX’s “anti-steering” policies anti-competitive)
Lozman v City of Riviera Beach, Florida (Retaliatory arrest)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky (Is Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at polling places overbroad)

March sitting: (5 cases pending)

Sveen v Melin (Applicability of revocation on divorce statute to contract signed before marriage)
National Institution of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra (Does the California Reproductive FACT Act violate First Amendment free speech protections)
China Agritech v Resh (Regards tolling of statutes of limitations in class actions)
Hughes v United States (Is a prisoner who entered a plea agreement eligible for a sentence reduction if the applicable sentencing range guidelines are later reduced) (1 other case attached to this one)
Benisek v Lamone (Rules regarding standing in partisan gerrymandering cases)

April sitting: (11 cases pending)

Wisconsin Central Limited v United States (Regarding tax-ability of stock transferred to employees under the Railroad Retirement Act)
WesternGeco LLP v ION Geophysical Corp (Intellectual property case)
Lamar, Archer and Cofrin v Appling (Bankruptcy case)
South Dakota v Wayfair (Sales tax case)
Washington v United States (Indian fishing rights under previous Treaties)
Chavez-Meza v United States (Regarding how a District Court must explain its refusal to grant a proportional sentence reduction)
Lucia v SEC (Whether Administrative Law Judges are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause)
Pereira v Sessions (Regarding the “stop time” rule)
Abbott v Perez (Texas redistricting) (1 case attached to this case)
Animal Science Products v Hebei Pharmaceutical Company (Regarding interpretation of foreign law by United States Courts)
Trump v Hawaii (Trump’s E.O.)

1 Like
2

Bumping.

Of course, nobody knows what will come when, but I fully expect that either Masterpiece Cakeshop or Gill v Whitford will come down tomorrow.

To stay on pace to end the term without adding more decision days, the Supreme Court would have to announce 7 or 8 cases tomorrow, which I doubt will happen. Hopefully we will get at least 4 or 5.

Hopefully, we will get something on tomorrow’s order list regarding the long running Garza v Hargan (now Garza v Azar) saga.

3

Masterpiece is a huge deal for religious liberty. I’m certainly anxiously anticipating it.

4

Personally I think it’s time to repeal public accommodation laws and respect the property rights and free association rights of business owners.

With that said I don’t support keeping laws in place that treat people differently. If the court rules with Mr. Phillips that people can claim a religious exemption to PA laws, however people that don’t want to serve the same customers but don’t hide behind religion still must - that isn’t a fair law. Oh - I can claim religion and not serve gays or Jews or Muslims or Mexicans. But if I’m against gays or Jews or Muslims or Mexicans for non-religious reasons no then I can’t.

On the other side a “religious baker” can refuse gays because of their religion, but the gay baker can’t refuse an evangelical pastor because of the pastors religious stances? If the religious baker can refuse gays, then ought gays be able to refuse evangelicals?

We’re not the same society were were 3 generations ago, we will not be returning to the Jim Crow era, repeal the law and let the market work it out.

.>>>>

5

.>

BTW…

My personal opinion is that the court will side with Mr. Phillips but in a vary narrow manner making is not generally applicable but very tailored to small businesses.

I don’t think it would be a right decision because if you go to the Masterpiece Cakeshop website he has a portfolio of wedding cakes, even if the couple had attempted to order one from the standard catalog they would have been refused - negating the whole “artistic expression” line. Because if it comes from the portfolio then it’s already been designed.

But like I said I think they will rule for Mr. Phillips but within certain bounds.

.>>>>

6

Everyone should have the right to refuse evangelicals.

7

Well, 4 decisions & a per curiam in Azar v Garza today:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Public accommodation v 1st Amendment)
Hughes v United States (Is a prisoner who entered a plea agreement eligible for a sentence reduction if the applicable sentencing range guidelines are later reduced) (1 other case attached to this one)
Koons v United States which was attached to Hughes for argument, was decided separately due to different facts in the case.
Lamar, Archer and Cofrin v Appling (Bankruptcy case)

Koons+Hughes counts as 1 case toward the 29 we started with, so with Masterpiece Cakeshop and Lamar, that leaves us with 26 cases to go.

1 Like
8

I think the odds are very high that we get Gill v Whitford next week.

10

You are misunderstanding the issue. The bakery owner was not refusing to serve them because they were gay. He was refusing specifically to bake a cake for their wedding.

If the gay couple had walked into the store and ordered a dozen muffins or an apple pie the owner would have given it to them. Your post is implying he would have refused even to do that, and it’s wrong.

11

Except no one is refusing to serve gays. Only to bake the wedding cake.

12

That’s a fine hair to split.

13

No, I understand the issue just fine. If the baker had refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple and said “my religious beliefs are…” - we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And before you say it’s “different”, I refer to you to Newman v. Piggie Park where a business owner made that exact claim fore refusing service because they were black. He lost.

Oh - BTW read the Colorado statute, it calls for “full and equal” access to goods and services. Not a subset of goods and services.

.>>>>

14

26 cases left.

I am not quite as sure whether we will get Gill v Whitford on Monday. It is possible they may hold that case until Abbott v Perez is ready, which could push it back to the end of June.

I think Carpenter v United States is a strong bet for Monday.

Here is the updated list of what is left:

October sitting: (1 case pending)

Gill v Whitford (Wisconsin redistricting)

November sitting: (0 cases pending)

Nothing

December sitting: (1 case pending)

Carpenter v United States (4th Amendment cell phone records case)

January sitting: (4 cases pending)

Florida v Georgia (original jurisdiction water wars case)
Texas v New Mexico and Colorado (original jurisdiction water wars case)
Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute (Legality of Ohio’s voter list maintenance procedures)
Ortiz v United States (Appointments Clause case) (2 other cases joined to this case)

February sitting: (6 cases pending)

Currier v Virginia (Double jeopardy case)
Rosales-Mireles v United States (Standard for “plain error” review in criminal appeals)
Janus v American Federal of Federal, State and Municipal Employees (Constitutionality of agency shop arrangements)
Ohio v American Express (Are AMEX’s “anti-steering” policies anti-competitive)
Lozman v City of Riviera Beach, Florida (Retaliatory arrest)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky (Is Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at polling places overbroad)

March sitting: (4 cases pending)

Sveen v Melin (Applicability of revocation on divorce statute to contract signed before marriage)
National Institution of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra (Does the California Reproductive FACT Act violate First Amendment free speech protections)
China Agritech v Resh (Regards tolling of statutes of limitations in class actions)
Benisek v Lamone (Rules regarding standing in partisan gerrymandering cases)

April sitting: (10 cases pending)

Wisconsin Central Limited v United States (Regarding tax-ability of stock transferred to employees under the Railroad Retirement Act)
WesternGeco LLP v ION Geophysical Corp (Intellectual property case)
South Dakota v Wayfair (Sales tax case)
Washington v United States (Indian fishing rights under previous Treaties)
Chavez-Meza v United States (Regarding how a District Court must explain its refusal to grant a proportional sentence reduction)
Lucia v SEC (Whether Administrative Law Judges are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause)
Pereira v Sessions (Regarding the “stop time” rule)
Abbott v Perez (Texas redistricting) (1 case attached to this case)
Animal Science Products v Hebei Pharmaceutical Company (Regarding interpretation of foreign law by United States Courts)
Trump v Hawaii (Trump’s E.O.)

15

Bumping this, as tomorrow morning we get another batch of decisions.