This edition of the SCOTUSblog “Round-Up” is written by Andrew Hamm, the manager of the site who generally oversees the research, composition, and publication of the blog’s content. In this week’s round-up, Hamm covers the three Supreme Court opinions that were issued on May 28. The cases that were seen and addressed by the Supreme Court on this day included Nieves v. Bartlett, Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, and Smith v. Berryhill. The matters involved in these cases included First Amendment rights and the authority to remove a class-action claim to federal court.
Another prominent case the Supreme Court issued an opinion on was Box v. Planned Parenthood which pertained to Indiana’s legislation relating to aspects of abortion providers including the disposition of fetal remains as well as abortions conducted based on information about the fetus such as disability or race.
Hamm provides a thorough look at the details pertaining to each case as well as the opinions the Supreme Court provided.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued three opinions. Mark Walsh has a “view” from the courtroom for yesterday’s session, which included the traditional presentation of Attorney General William Barr to the court.
In Nieves v. Bartlett, the court ruled that a plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim failed because police officers had probable cause to arrest him. Howard Wasserman has this blog’s opinion analysis. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, who reports that “[s]ome justices would have gone further still to protect First Amendment expression from police retaliation.” Lisa Soronen discusses the opinion at the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog.
In Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, the court held, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, that neither of two removal provisions in federal law permit a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a class-action claim from state to federal court. Coverage comes from Jon Hill of Law360, Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News Service and Tony Mauro of the The National Law Journal (registration may be required), who reports that the “rare pro-consumer ruling in a class action was even more unusual because of the uncommon allies who joined Thomas: liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.” Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer for the decision. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
In Smith v. Berryhill, the court unanimously held that a Social Security Administration Appeals Council dismissal on timeliness grounds of a request for review after a claimant has had an administrative law judge hearing on the merits qualifies as a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Kathryn Moore has this blog’s analysis. Additional coverage comes from Emily Brill of Law360.
Read the rest of the Round-Up on the SCOTUSblog website.
Jorge J. Perez is an attorney in South Florida. He is a self-professed history buff.