Supreme Court decisions for 2/22/23

Bartenwerfer v Buckley

Bartenwerfer is a bankrupt and the Petitioner in this case. She cannot discharge a $200,000 fraud judgement in bankruptcy, even though she was not materially culpable for the fraud that led to the judgement. Court rules for Buckley, who is owed the judgement.

Unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Jackson.

Helix Energy Group Solutions v Hewitt

The Court ruled that Hewitt is non-exempt under the FLSA and must be paid overtime.

Justice Kagan wrote the Opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett and Jackson. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito.

Cruz v Arizona

Cruz is on Arizona Death Row for capital murder. This case essentially reverses the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that Cruz may not seek habeas relief in Arizona due to a change in federal legal precedents, i.e. Lynch. Cruz may now seek habeas relief in Arizona State courts.

Justice Sotomayor wrote the Opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson. Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

The last two opinions clearly show that while conservatives may have a 6 to 3 majority on the Court, they are fractured on numerous issues.

1 Like

Is that what it shows? Or does it show they are trying to follow the law instead of politics?


Correct. It also shows that conservatives aren’t the sheep that libs love to exist as.


That is what I see.

I have no issues with any of these decisions.

I don’t get why she can’t bankrupt against it.

But when you get a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling, it’s pretty definitive.

1 Like

Which ones are following the law? The ones in the majority or the ones in the minority

I haven’t looked closely at the cases. Notice my comment was a question and not a statement

1 Like

its the law. congress can change it if it wants to.

here the blurb from the opinion.

“All of this said, innocent people are sometimes held liable for fraud they did not personally commit, and, if they de- clare bankruptcy, §523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of that debt. So it is for Bartenwerfer, and we are sensitive to the hard- ship she faces”

congress needs to change this law but wont.