Today’s order list.
4 decisions this morning, 3 Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General, 8 new case grants (3 are bundled for one argument and 2 are bundled for another argument, so 5 new arguments scheduled).
For now, just listing the 4 decisions, will list the grants and CVSG’s in a subsequent post.
Holding : Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
Judgment : Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 24, 2019. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined, and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but Part II-C.
I fully concur with this decision. This is just the latest in a series of cases that have overturned federal criminal law for unconstitutional vagueness.
Holding : Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
Judgment : Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 24, 2019. Justice Breyer filed and opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.
Holding : The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
Judgment : Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 24, 2019. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.
This is the big case of the day. Very happy with the outcome. It is not the government’s job to enforce morality and they clearly can’t do so in violation of the First Amendment.
If you wish to know what the trademark in question is, follow that link, which is the Opinion of the Court, the trademark in question is right at the beginning. I cannot include it here as it would obviously constitute a filter bypass violation.
Holding : A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
Judgment : Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 24, 2019. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
The Supreme Court will be back on Wednesday (don’t know why they are skipping tomorrow) and I would expect 4 more decisions Wednesday and the final 4 on Thursday.
I will post on the CVSGs (one of which is in a very significant original jurisdiction case between Arizona and California) and on the new grants later.