Posted on 04/16/2024 7:11:26 AM PDT by CFW
We have the first opinion, from Justice Jackson in Rudisill v. McDonough. 8 The vote is 7-2, with a dissent by Thomas joined by Alito.
This is a case about education benefits for veterans and whether the veteran can access benefits under the Post-9/11 Veterans Act without being subject to limits imposed by the Montgomery GI Bill.
The Court holds that service members who, through separate periods of service, accrue benefits under both bills, can use either one, in any order, up to a 48-month aggregate cap.
Kavanaugh files a concurring opinion that Barrett joins.
Decision is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf
The second opinion and final opinion of the day is by Justice Thomas (who is at the court) in Devillier v. Texas.
The court holds that DeVillier and other property owners whose land was flooded by the state's actions to prevent flooding on the highway can pursue their claims under the Constitution's takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law.
Here is a link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf
That's all the opinions by the Court for today. They wil issue more opinions tomorrow.
Now, on to oral arguments starting in a few minutes in Fischer v. USA.
Oral argument can be heard here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?534910-1/supreme-court-hears-case-challenging-january-6-obstruction-charge
or
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
When both Thomas and Alito dissent, the decision is probably bad law.
CSPAN 3 carrying Jan 6 Obstruction argumentation
When both Thomas and Alito dissent, the decision is probably bad law.
probably without reading the dissent over a time period.
STILL no decision on the Chevron revisit...
They are kicking that can WAAAAAYYYYY down the road. It was supposed to be released last October...
Not necessarily, and I don’t have an issue with vets getting the bennies. But the other case is a clear win vs. the Deep State (even if it is in the form of the state of Texas).
Overall, this court has been REMARKABLE in chipping away at teh power of the Deep State: WVA v. EPA, another anti-EPA ruling, returning abortion to the states, Braun, now this. Watch for the Chevron ruling in the fall to be a monumental roll-back.
I agree. The takings case is a clear win, a pretty big win at that. I will have to read Thomas’ opinion.
The “TAKINGS” clause has been bastardized under Dems...
This helps stabilize it again, IMO.
Got into a battle with County Supes in N Callf over their desire/demand that every weed/ bush/ tree/ bird/ coyote/ bear/ cougar get INVENTORIED by “volunteers who could come on private property at any time without notice.
I made a big stink and I did NOT back down.
When they said that IF a volunteer got hurt on MY property & I would be liable-—I said I would see them in court.
I had bought HORSE PROPERTY-—not INVADER property.
LOVED eating them up in meetings-—Some were SRO. Many horse owners who, like me, paid premium prices for larger acreage.
STILL no decision on the Chevron revisit...
They are kicking that can WAAAAAYYYYY down the road. It was supposed to be released last October...
No, the opinion was not supposed to be released last October. October is when this term of the court began.
Oral arguments on the two cases (see synopsis below on both) were just held in January of this year. The Court’s opinion will be handed down sometime before the end of June, which is the end of this term. It’s a complicated case (actually combined in two cases heard at the court this year) and will take quite some time for the clerks to do their research, minds changed, and dissenting opinions addressed, before a final opinion is decided upon and written.
Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 [Arg: 1.17.2024]
Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 [Arg: 1.17.2024]
Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Additional opinions issued today at 10:00 a.m.
We have the first opinion of the court today in Muldrow v. St. Louis.
It is by Justice Kagan, and the decision by the Eighth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193 [Arg: 12.6.2023]
Issue(s): Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage.
Held: The court holds that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but the harm does not have to be significant.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh each have opinions concurring in the judgment.
Court’s opinion here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf
We have the second and final decision today, in McIntosh v. US.
It is by Justice Sotomayor, and it is unanimous.
McIntosh v. U.S., No. 22-7386 [Arg: 2.27.2024]
Issue(s): Whether a district court may enter a criminal-forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.
Held: The court holds that when a district court fails to comply with the requirement, outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to enter a preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing, that does not preclude the district judge from later ordering forfeiture subject to review on appeal for harmlessness.
This case was argued on February 27, so the justices made quick work of it — unanimous without any separate opinions and only 13 pages.
Opinion here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-7386_10n2.pdf
That’s all the Opinions from SCOTUS for today. Still nothing on the Chevron cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.