Cases that remain – Scotusblog

Before its summer recess begins at the end of June or early July, the Supreme Court left 10 cases to decide, on subjects from the constitutionality of the Louisiana congress card to the power of the federal judges of the district to issue national injunctions.

The judges should take the bench on Thursday morning to issue opinions, although they are likely to add at least one day of additional decision before starting their summer vacation.

Here are brief summaries of the remaining 10 cases, as well as (if possible) predictions on what justice could write what opinion.

1. Hewitt c. UNITED STATES (Pleaded on January 13): This is a case involving the first step, a law of 2018 which reduced certain mandatory penalties of the minimum for future offenders as well as for previous offenders whose criminal cases were still pending. The question before the judges was whether these provisions to reduce sentences also apply to a criminal accused who was initially condemned before the promulgation of the law, but whose sentence was expelled, which made the defendant were condemned after the adoption of the law.
2. Free speech coalition c. Paxton (Pleaded on January 15): This case stems from a challenge to a commercial group for the entertainment industry for adults to a Texas law in 2023 which requires that the pornography sites check the age of their users before giving access. The law applies to any website offering content “of which more than third party is harmful sexual material for minors”. The question that the judges agreed to decide was whether the American Court of Appeal for the 5th circuit correctly applied a less rigorous constitutional test, known as the rational base examination, when examining the law, or if it should have applied in place a stricter standard, called strict examination.

The judges try to distribute the workload uniformly during the quarter but also on a basis of months in months. The only judges who have not yet written any opinions for the January argument of the Court are the judges Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson. It seems more likely that Thomas writes in Coalition of freedom of expression (which, on the basis of his questions to the oral argument, should good increase for Texas) and Jackson – who once sat on the American condemnation committee – in BellBut we will know it sooner.

• GUTIERREZ c. South (Pleaded on February 24): This is a case filed by an inmate of the death of Texas who sought post-connviction tests on the evidence which, according to him, exempted it. The 5th circuit judged that it had no legal right to continue, known as a state court, because even if DNA tests showed that it did not (as it supports) entering within the victim’s home, it would have always been eligible for the death penalty due to its role in the flight program.

Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch have not yet written any opinions for February, which presented only eight arguments. Sotomayor seems to be done for the quarter, because she has already written for March and April, while Gorsuch could still have a decision in March. If Sotomayor actually writes GutierrezIt could be good news for the inmate.

• Louisiana v. Callais (Pleaded on March 24): this is a dispute on a map of the congress that the Louisiana legislative assembly adopted last year. After a Federal Court ruled, in a separate trial, that a map in 2022 containing a mainly black district probably violated the law on voting rights, the legislator promulgated a new card, which contained two mainly black districts. A group of voters describing themselves as “American non-African” challenged the 2024 card, claiming that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander-that is to say that he sorted the voters based mainly on their race. Defending the new card, the state argued that the race was not the motivation factor behind the new card. Instead, he said, he drew the map as he did to protect several high-level republican operators, such as the president of the Mike Johnson Chamber and the representative Julia Letlow, who sits on the powerful chamber credits committee.
• Riley v. Leap (Articulated on March 24): the judges examine if and when a non-citizen who has exceeded his visa and has an order for his expulsion can contest an order refusing his request for a restraint of referral (an order which allows him to be withdrawn from the United States but not in a country where he could be persecuted or tortured). The American Court of Appeal for the 4th Circuit judged that the request under examination submitted by Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, came too late because it was not filed 30 days after an immigration agent made a final referral order in his case, even if his request for a restraint of referral was not resolved for more than a year after.
• Federal Communications Commission c. Consumer research (Articulated on March 26): This case is a challenge for a federal program that subsidizes telephone and high speed internet services in schools, libraries, rural areas and low -income communities in urban areas. The money for subsidies comes from the Universal Service Fund, created by Congress and financed mainly by the contributions of telecommunications carriers. A private non -profit organization created by the FCC, known as the Universal Administrative Service Company, administers the fund. A consumer protection group which (among others) has recently been devoted to the fight against “awakened” companies maintains that the program violates non -delegated doctrine – the idea that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.
• Medina v. Planned Parenthood (A pleaded on April 2): ​​The question is whether a provision of the Medicaid law which allows any eligible patient to request health care from any “qualified” supplier creates individual rights which can be applied under federal laws on civil rights. The question comes from the court in a case brought by a woman from South Carolina who received care from Planned Parenthood and challenges an order from the Governor of South Carolina Henry McMaster who prohibits abortion clinics from participating in the Medicaid program.

With four cases from the March argument session of the court and five judges who have not yet written any opinions, it is too difficult to guess the possible authors for March at this stage.

• Kennedy c. Braidwood Management (A pleaded on April 21): This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of the working group structure on American preventive services, an independent panel of experts with power under the affordable care law to determine which insurers of preventive services must cover. The complainants of the case, who have religious objections to the requirement that insurers ensure the coverage of a drug which prevents the transmission of HIV, argue that the Constitution requires that the members of the working group be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
• Mahmoud c. Taylor (A pleaded on April 22): in this case, the judges decide whether it violates religious beliefs and, consequently, the rights of the first amendment of a group of parents in Maryland to demand that their children participate in teaching in their public schools which includes LGBTQ +themes. Parents, Muslims, Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox, want to be able to withdraw their children by instruction involving books of stories on the theme of the LGBTQ.

Only three judges – Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Jackson – have not yet written opinions for April. The most likely scenario has an alito writing Mahmoud And either Kagan (more probably) or Jackson writing Braided.

1. Trump c. Casa (Has argued on May 15): Although these three consolidated cases began as a challenge for the executive decree of President Donald Trump ending the citizenship of the birth law – the guarantee of citizenship in practically all those born in the United States – they came to the judges as an emergency call in which the Trump administration asked the judges to weigh on a different question: The power to implement the national government “The order of citizenship of birth law across the country?

Because this is the only expected opinion in May (when judges normally do not intend to cases), all bets are theoretically extinct as to the author. But this seems to be the one that chief judge John Roberts is likely to take for himself – or this could be an uncommon opinion (or “by Curiam”, which means “for the court”).