The Supreme Court did not issue decisions on Tuesday and only issued two today.
TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Held: By ratifying the Constitution, the States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces. Congress may exercise this power to authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States, as in USERRA. Pp. 3–16.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.
Below is the “plan of the convention” doctrine:
Plan of the convention doctrine refers to a principle that each state in the U.S. by ratifying the U.S. Constitution has consented to the possibility of being sued by each of the other states, and therefore has no immunity from such a suit under the 11th Amendment. If the Constitution itself contemplated the abrogation of sovereign immunity in a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment does not act to restore the states to their pre-ratification sovereign status. A state’s ratification of the Constitution or admission into the Union on an “equal footing” with the other states resulted in a surrender by the states of certain pre-existing rights.
OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA
Held: The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Pp. 4–25.
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
The Supreme Court declines to extend McGirt.
Two more decisions remaining. The Court issued a press release announcing that Thursday, June 30th will be the final day of the term.