What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Propublica is doing a piece on alito and asked him for comment.

he replied with a wsj editorial lol

https://twitter.com/leahlitman/status/1671296619537391617?s=46&t=_zdCvWNS3v2cVkMjQylOVg
Click to expand...

He actually suggested that because that private jet was going whether he was on it or not, therefore it has zero dollar value and is therefore not a COI. Also, he saved the taxpayers money since he didn't need an air marshal escort to fly private. And that fishing lodge was a dump, it has since been renovated to look that nice!

Pathetic.
 
Apologize if this was already a discussion on here, but I think one of the better ethical guidelines on gifts is never to accept something as a gift that you couldn’t give as a gift. If a billionaire offers to pick up my tab at TGiFriday’s, no sweat - getcha back next time. But if a billionaire offers to fly me to Alaska on his private plane and take me fishing on (presumably) his private boat, I could never reciprocate, so that is out of bounds.

Even that breaks down a bit when you’re talking out billionaires buying influence with millionaires, though - plenty of Members would have the money to send a billionaire on that trip…..like they ever would.
 
LynahFan said:
Apologize if this was already a discussion on here, but I think one of the better ethical guidelines on gifts is never to accept something as a gift that you couldn’t give as a gift. If a billionaire offers to pick up my tab at TGiFriday’s, no sweat - getcha back next time. But if a billionaire offers to fly me to Alaska on his private plane and take me fishing on (presumably) his private boat, I could never reciprocate, so that is out of bounds.

Even that breaks down a bit when you’re talking out billionaires buying influence with millionaires, though - plenty of Members would have the money to send a billionaire on that trip…..like they ever would.
Click to expand...

The jokes write themselves, but my former engineering company did a lot of City of Chicago work, especially at O'Hare. To get badged for the airport, the *first* requirement was to watch a (very dry) two hour ethics video hosted by a City lawyer (couldn't FF, skip, etc, the website tracked all that).

*insert ALL the jokes about the City of Chicago and ethics*

The main take away was that as workers for the city, we were unable to accept any gift from anyone who also worked for or could influence the city (even as consultants/contractors).

Like, to the point where a close friend of mine, I knew of for years, happened to be working on an project at the airport asked if I wanted his baseball tickets for a game, and I had to decline because of the ethics rules so it didn't appear that my company was swayed by the gift. (I could have filled out a form declaring the value, a receipt of purchase of the tickets, etc., but the hassle wasn't worth it.)

At our level! Construction foreman and Construction Engineer Inspector.
 
LynahFan said:
Apologize if this was already a discussion on here, but I think one of the better ethical guidelines on gifts is never to accept something as a gift that you couldn’t give as a gift. If a billionaire offers to pick up my tab at TGiFriday’s, no sweat - getcha back next time. But if a billionaire offers to fly me to Alaska on his private plane and take me fishing on (presumably) his private boat, I could never reciprocate, so that is out of bounds.

Even that breaks down a bit when you’re talking out billionaires buying influence with millionaires, though - plenty of Members would have the money to send a billionaire on that trip…..like they ever would.
Click to expand...
It's pretty cut and dried where I work,

Anything worth $50 or more is considered to be "of substantial value" for purposes of the conflict of interest law. To determine substantial value, the Commission may consider, for example, the cost per person of entertainment hosted by the giver, what it would cost the public to purchase an item or the actual cost incurred by the giver in acquiring the gift given to the public employee. In some situations, the value of a gift will not be its retail price. The giver may have paid more, for example, than the face price of a ticket.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
He actually suggested that because that private jet was going whether he was on it or not, therefore it has zero dollar value and is therefore not a COI. Also, he saved the taxpayers money since he didn't need an air marshal escort to fly private. And that fishing lodge was a dump, it has since been renovated to look that nice!

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Those may be decent arguments. Know where would be a good place to discuss them? On the disclosure form he never filled out.
 
With a few explicit exceptions, state of Iowa employees can't accept anything with a monetary value over $3 from a restricted donor.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I got bored while eating lunch, so here's the rundown - Cases linked on title. Blue cases are "significant" according to SCOTUSBlog.

November - 4 cases remaining: - No change
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Thomas, ALito, and Kavanaugh
My guess: Thomas x2 killing AA. Alito gets Jones and Roberts gets Mallory
Comments: That doesn't look great for affirmative action. Both Harvard and UNC are in November term.

December - 3 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.
My Guess: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts gets Moore, Alito gets TExas, 303 and EHR go to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Comments: Not great for Moore... Hopefully I'm wrong about the numbers and Kagan writes that (or roberts+libs+gorsuch/kav).....
US v. Texas- Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the DHS Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; Whether guidelines are contrary to other sections or violate administrative procedure act; whether 8 USC prevents entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" guidelines in 5 USC.
303 Creative v Elenis - Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
US v Executive Health Resources - Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.
Moore v. Harper - Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof," and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

February - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts + Alito
Biden v. Nebraska - (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.)
Department of Education v. Brown - (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

March - 5 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. But wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch gets Arizona and one of the listed moves to a December case.
Arizona v. Navajo Nation - This is related to Native American water rights.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district courtâ??s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal
United States v. Hansen - Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
Lora v. United States - Whether 18 U.S.C., which provides that "no term of imprisonment imposed... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C.
Samia v. United States - Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.

April - 4 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh haven't written.
Comments: Groff is a big one. I'd almost rather give up Groff if it means we have a better shot at Moore or the student loan cases.
My Guess: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh. Just because it's the hardest kick in the pants, I wouldn't be surprised to see Alito get Groff.
Groff v. DeJoy - (How far employers must go to accommodate religious practices of their employees.) - Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's coworkers rather than the business itself.
Pugin v. Garland - To qualify as "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?
Counterman v. Colorado - Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin - Whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances.
Click to expand...

Update from 6/16 cases.
Rut roh... We're likely going to miss on Groff and Moore. That's not great.
 
Last edited:
LynahFan said:
Apologize if this was already a discussion on here, but I think one of the better ethical guidelines on gifts is never to accept something as a gift that you couldn’t give as a gift. If a billionaire offers to pick up my tab at TGiFriday’s, no sweat - getcha back next time. But if a billionaire offers to fly me to Alaska on his private plane and take me fishing on (presumably) his private boat, I could never reciprocate, so that is out of bounds.

Even that breaks down a bit when you’re talking out billionaires buying influence with millionaires, though - plenty of Members would have the money to send a billionaire on that trip…..like they ever would.
Click to expand...

My employer of questionable ethics has a training video each year.

1) hard cap at $250, sometimes lower in certain situations,
2) has to be approved by a specialized team after receiving it and before use, or before giving,
3) and no gifts either to give or receive involving government officials at all.

My oft-fined employer shows greater ethical standards than a few (most?) of the SCOTUS justices.
 
There are very well defined ethical standards in my line of work. Thomas' behavior would be considered prima facie evidence of corruption.

If you are operating at an ethical level well below the defense contractor industry, you are not an honest person, and you should not be employed in any government or other public service capacity.
 
Last edited:
St. Clown said:
My employer of questionable ethics has a training video each year.

1) hard cap at $250, sometimes lower in certain situations,
2) has to be approved by a specialized team after receiving it and before use, or before giving,
3) and no gifts either to give or receive involving government officials at all.

My oft-fined employer shows greater ethical standards than a few (most?) of the SCOTUS justices.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was really only talking ethics, not law. My employer’s rule is that we can neither provide (to our government customers) nor accept (from suppliers) anything worth more than $5. That includes food at meetings, even if you are literally working through lunch. You should see my collections of pens and coffee mugs….
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I got bored while eating lunch, so here's the rundown - Cases linked on title. Blue cases are "significant" according to SCOTUSBlog.

November - 3 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh
My guess: Thomas x2 killing AA. Alito gets Jones and Roberts gets Mallory
Comments: That doesn't look great for affirmative action. Both Harvard and UNC are in November term.

December - 3 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.
My Guess: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts gets Moore, Alito gets TExas, 303 and EHR go to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Comments: Not great for Moore... Hopefully I'm wrong about the numbers and Kagan writes that (or roberts+libs+gorsuch/kav).....
US v. Texas- Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the DHS Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; Whether guidelines are contrary to other sections or violate administrative procedure act; whether 8 USC prevents entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" guidelines in 5 USC.
303 Creative v Elenis - Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
US v Executive Health Resources - Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.
Moore v. Harper - Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof," and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

February - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts + Alito
Biden v. Nebraska - (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.)
Department of Education v. Brown - (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

March - 4 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson. But wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch gets Arizona and one of the listed moves to a December case
Arizona v. Navajo Nation - This is related to Native American water rights.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court's jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal
United States v. Hansen - Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
Lora v. United States - Whether 18 U.S.C., which provides that "no term of imprisonment imposed... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C.
Samia v. United States - Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.

April - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh
Comments: Groff is a big one. I'd almost rather give up Groff if it means we have a better shot at Moore or the student loan cases.
My Guess: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh. Just because it's the hardest kick in the pants, I wouldn't be surprised to see Alito get Groff.
Groff v. DeJoy - (How far employers must go to accommodate religious practices of their employees.) - Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's coworkers rather than the business itself.
Pugin v. Garland - To qualify as "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?
Counterman v. Colorado - Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin - Whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances.
Click to expand...

Update from 6/22

Estimated left: [TABLE="border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 80"]Roberts[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Alito[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Thomas[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Sotomayor[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Gorsuch[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Kavanaugh[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Kagan[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Jackson[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Everyone is +/- 1 here. Libs are more likely to be -1, cons more likely to be +1.

Of note, there are two AA cases and Mallory remaining for November. ONly Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh haven't written yet. Thomas still has an estimated minimum of two remaining for the entire OT22. He hasn't written in March and there are four cases remaining there. That might eat up one of his two unless he takes both AA cases. Which would be very unlikely as that would give him three cases in November. Either way, it's looking really bad.

An even assignment would look like this for the remaining cases. One case assigned somewhere in the yellow block. Two cases assigned somewhere in the green. And Kavanaugh gets one in November or December. [TABLE="width: 429"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Oct.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Nov.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Dec.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Jan.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Feb.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Mar.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Apr.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Roberts[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1+?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1+?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Thomas[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]1+?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Alito[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1+?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]?[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]1+?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Sotomayor[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Kagan[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Gorsuch[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Kavanaugh[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl70, bgcolor: #FFC000, colspan: 2"]Likely N or D[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl71"]Jackson[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​
 
Oh, and in Arizona v Navajo Nation, Gorsuch wrote a dissent worth reading. I'm convinced any case involving Native Americans is going to feature a Gorsuch opinion worth reading.

Edit: holy crap

Yet even today, water remains a precious resource. "Members of the Navajo Nation use around 7 gallons of water per day for all of their household needs" - less than one-tenth the amount the average American household uses. Id., at 101.
Click to expand...


This is also a great line
Reality never quite caught up to the law's ambitions.
Click to expand...

Good gravy
Where do the Navajo go from here? To date, their efforts to find out what water rights the United States holds forthem have produced an experience familiar to any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they havebeen standing in the wrong line and must try another.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
Oh, and in Arizona v Navajo Nation, Gorsuch wrote a dissent worth reading. I'm convinced any case involving Native Americans is going to feature a Gorsuch opinion worth reading.

Edit: holy crap




This is also a great line


Good gravy
Click to expand...

I think I saw this on that episode of the West Wing about Indians in the lobby. What was that called...
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I got bored while eating lunch, so here's the rundown - Cases linked on title. Blue cases are "significant" according to SCOTUSBlog.

November - 3cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh
My guess: Thomas x2 killing AA. Alito gets Jones and Roberts gets Mallory
Comments: That doesn't look great for affirmative action. Both Harvard and UNC are in November term.

December - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.
My Guess: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts gets Moore, Alito gets Texas, 303 and EHR go to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Comments: Not great for Moore... Hopefully I'm wrong about the numbers and Kagan writes that (or roberts+libs+gorsuch/kav).....
US v. Texas- Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the DHS Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; Whether guidelines are contrary to other sections or violate administrative procedure act; whether 8 USC prevents entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" guidelines in 5 USC.
303 Creative v Elenis - Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
US v Executive Health Resources - Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.
Moore v. Harper - Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof," and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

February - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts, Alito
Biden v. Nebraska - (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.)
Department of Education v. Brown - (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

March - 1 case remaining:
Not Written Yet: Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson. But wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch gets Arizona and one of the listed moves to a December case
Arizona v. Navajo Nation- This is related to Native American water rights.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court's jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal
United States v. Hansen - Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
Lora v. United States - Whether 18 U.S.C., which provides that "no term of imprisonment imposed... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C.
Samia v. United States - Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.

April - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
Comments: Groff is a big one. I'd almost rather give up Groff if it means we have a better shot at Moore or the student loan cases.
My Guess: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh. Just because it's the hardest kick in the pants, I wouldn't be surprised to see Alito get Groff.
Groff v. DeJoy - (How far employers must go to accommodate religious practices of their employees.) - Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's coworkers rather than the business itself.
Pugin v. Garland - To qualify as "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?
Counterman v. Colorado - Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin - Whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances.
Click to expand...

Update from 6/23

Estimated left: [TABLE="border: 1, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 80"]Roberts[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Alito[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Thomas[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Sotomayor[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Gorsuch[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Kagan[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Jackson[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]Kavanaugh[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]-1*[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Everyone is +/- 1 here. Libs are more likely to be -1, cons more likely to be +1.
*Kav is -1 because it meant he got one additional unexpected case.


An even assignment would look like this for the remaining cases. One case assigned somewhere in the yellow block. One case assigned somewhere in the green. [TABLE="border: 1, width: 429"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Oct.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Nov.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Dec.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Jan.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Feb.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Mar.[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]Apr.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Roberts[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Thomas[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Alito[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: yellow"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: #92D050"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Sotomayor[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Kagan[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Gorsuch[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"]1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Kavanaugh[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl70"]Jackson[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I'm also wondering if the two affirmative action cases (November) go to one justice and the two student loan cases (February) go to one justice. If that's the case, then Roberts or Alito will be writing them. Which would make sense. Then that would mean Whomever writes the AA opinions doesn't get the student loan opinions. Whomever gets the student loan opinons will also write Mallory, otherwise that justice would have three opinions in Nov (very unlikely). Since Mallory is a corporate case, that's a Roberts thing. So I'm guessing Roberts writes student loan opinons and Mallory. Alito kills affirmative action.

Curveball here is that Thomas has at least one more opinion to write. Since he's already written in every month now, it's a complete wildcard where he ends up. He might end up getting Groff. God help us all if if Moore was decided 5-4 with Roberts joining the libs. That means Thomas gets to pick who writes and we're all very f=cked.

Sotomayor has one more case and she hasn't written in March. Not a blockbuster case either...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top