Six decisions remain. (The two Abbott v Perez cases from April are being considered and decided as a single case.)
It is possible that we could get all six on Monday, though I would expect the Supreme Court to wait and deliver some on Tuesday.
Additionally, we will get the final regular order list on Monday. After the Supreme Court delivers its final opinions, they will likely hold a “wrap up” conference and there will probably be an extra order list as a result, that may come on Wednesday or Thursday.
Additionally, if any Justice decides to pull a surprise retirement, they will likely announce it from the bench immediately after the final decision is released. I personally do not expect any retirements.
Here is what is left:
Florida v. Georgia, No. 22o142 [Arg: 1.8.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region. CVSG: 09/18/2014.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466 [Arg: 2.26.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454 [Arg: 2.26.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government’s showing that American Express’ anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 [Arg: 3.20.18 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586 [Arg: 4.24.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether the Texas legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; and (4) whether the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-626 [Arg: 4.24.2018 Trans.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw Texas House of Representatives districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas House map within three business days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted Texas House of Representatives districts originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether any of the invalidated districts that were unchanged from the 2012 court-imposed remedial plan to the 2013 legislatively adopted plan (in Bell, Dallas and Nueces Counties) are unlawful, when the district court in 2012 issued an opinion explaining why these districts were lawful; and (4) whether the Texas Legislature had a strong basis in evidence to believe that consideration of race to maintain a Hispanic voter-registration majority was necessary in House District 90 in Tarrant County, when one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the legislature it had to keep the district’s population above 50 percent Spanish-surnamed-voter registration to avoid diluting Hispanic voting strength.
Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 [Arg: 4.25.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.