During May and June of each term (which begins in October), the Supreme Court of the United States traditionally releases opinions (rulings) in the cases that they have heard during that term.

Opinions can be found at supremecourt.gov/OPINIONS/slipopinion/21
or
scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2021

Each year, SCOTUSblog publishes an end-of-term Stat Pack intended to provide data-driven a***ysis of the Supreme Court’s term and identify trends over time. An archive of every Stat Pack dating to October Term 1995 is available at scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack.

scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SCOTUSblog-Final-STAT-PACK-OT2021.pdf

im interested in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta because im pretty sure theres a prior case that the state cant prosecute native americans who committed crimes against non-natives on reservations. if the decision isn't parallel to that decision then it imbalances the relationship of reservations to the state

thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3517724-expected-reversal-of-miranda-requires-states-to-step-up-on-policing/amp

Possible reversal of Miranda rights

in the wake of that case (McGirt), and after reading the state of Oklahoma's not-particularly-convincing argument, to me it's a clear ruling for Castro-Huerta

but McGirt was 5-4, and Ginsburg has been replaced by Barrett in the two years since that case was decided

so we'll see if Chief/Justice (but not Chief Justice) Gorsuch and the three libs can get one more conservative on their side

There were two Native-related cases this week: while Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh were on the opposite side from Gorsuch in both, Barrett was 50-50

she wrote the majority opinion that he dissented against in Denezpi yet swung his way to be the fifth vote for his majority opinion in Ysleta

so i think she is definitely the swing vote in Castro-Huerta

ill add it

interested in this

five more decisions today, none of the sexiest ones but all of course important in their own way

Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
United States v. Taylor
United States v. Washington
Shoop v. Twyford
Carson v. Makin

ill give a short summary of each when i have time

the shoop v twyford & us v taylor decisions are pretty big decisions in regards to civil rights/criminal justice

carson v makin is a huge win for the GOP platform

parody level case

conservatives care more about Israel than they do this country

i wonder how this loyalty pledge fits into their whole 'America First' thing

Been busy having to actually work this week, smh, but want to at least note that two of the decisions I featured in OP were handed out

either tonight or at the end of the week after the decisions being handed out tomorrow (three in a week!) i'll summarize all the decisions for the week

In Bruen the court ruled, 6-3, only the liberals dissenting, that the state of New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. (I.e, that while "shall issue" states that have to give you a concealed carry license if you meet statutory requirements do not violate the Constitution, "may issue" states that reserve the right to deny you one even if you meet the minimum requirements do violate the Constitution).

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

In Vega the court ruled, 6-3, only the liberals dissenting, that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (i.e, that while confessions or evidence that is collected which violates Miranda are still not admissible, the violation itself does not allow you to sue the violating officer for damages under the federal statute which creates a cause of action for violating someone's constitutional rights).

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

The most important decision handed down today

lmao

this thread obviously wasn't doing numbers for Roe so I put it here

Curious what yall believe the most damaging case(s) for labor will be this Summer? Am trying to prepare myself. My union is still feeling the effects of Janus V. State.

I don't see anything as specifically labor-centric as Janus from this term (either already decided or yet to be)

There was some stuff about arbitration

In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon SCOTUS ruled that people who load cargo are a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" and so were exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

It was, I think, a reasonable compromise. Saxon, who was a ramp supervisor for Southwest, said that all airline employees should be considered "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Southwest said only people who actually cross state lines in the transfer of commerce constitute that class of workers.

The Court split the difference and said that while someone who works at a desk in the terminal is not "engaged" (actively working) in "interstate commerce," clearly the "plain text suffices to show that airplane cargo loaders, and thus ramp supervisors who frequently load and unload cargo, are" in the class of workers who were exempt. It was unanimous. Not bad for workers, but could have been better IMO.

Okay I've been slacking but I'll write about today's new opinions that were released during this 9 am Central Time hour (yes, the Supreme Court is still trucking on after killing Roe)

in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District the Court ruled 6-3 (more or less) that "the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression."

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

In Concepcion v. United States the Court ruled 5-4 (the liberals + Thomas and Gorsuch, very rare combo) that "the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence."

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf

In Xiulu Ruan v. United States the Court ruled unanimously that when someone is being charged under "21 U. S. C. §841, which makes it a federal crime, “except as authorized, . . . for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense . . . a controlled substance,” after the defendant provides evidence that they were authorized to dispense controlled substances, the government must prove that "the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner, or intended to do so." (Basically, if they were prescribing pills in an illegal manner, the government has to prove that they knew that they were.)

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf

the Ruan decision is insane

Yeah it took me a second to even understand what the holding was saying

Alito’s concurrence is clearly more reasonable

That's not exactly what the Court ruled, although I don't think the majority opinion was any less disingenuous.

This guy also is incorrect, although he alludes to the fact that "praying by himself at midfield" ignores large swaths of the story.

(These quotes will be from both the majority and dissenting opinions, to try and piece together the fairest characterization.)

Kennedy did have "a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field and consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location." The district (understandably, because of the law) told him to stop, and probably could have fired him at that juncture -- but they didn't, because, I presume, they liked him, which seems to have been a tactical error on their part.

So Kennedy did, and also "further felt pressured to
abandon his practice of saying his own quiet, on-field postgame prayer.. Driving home after a game, however, Mr. Kennedy felt upset that he had “broken his commitment to God” by not offering his own prayer, so he turned his car around and returned to the field. Ibid. By that point, everyone had left the stadium, and he walked to the 50-yard line and knelt to say a brief prayer of thanks."

Then, "on October 14, through counsel, Mr. Kennedy sent a letter to school officials informing them that, because of his
“sincerely-held religious beliefs,” he felt “compelled” to offer
a “post-game personal prayer” of thanks at midfield... asking the District to allow him to continue that “private religious expression” alone... and explaining that he “neither requests, encourages, nor discourages students from participating in” these prayers, id.

Now, given that for years he led players in prayer very ostentatiously, I think it is fair for the district to respond that while the hypothetical solo prayer would be off-field, he would still be "on duty... immediately following completion of the football game, when students are still on the football field, in uniform, under the stadium lights, with the audience still in attendance, and while Mr. Kennedy is still in his District-issued
and District-logoed attire," and to make special note that ""engaging in prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after the game finished would appear to be an extension of Kennedy’s “prior, long-standing and well- known history of leading students in prayer” on the 50-yard line after games."

Kennedy said f*** it and did it anyway.

The majority describes the events as follows:

"Mr. Kennedy offered a brief prayer following the October 16 game... when he bowed his head at midfield after the game, “most
Bremerton players were . . . engaged in the traditional
singing of the school fight song to the audience... and while Mr. Kennedy was alone when he began to pray, players from the other team and members of the community joined him before he finished his prayer... This event spurred media coverage of Mr. Kennedy’s dilemma and a public response from the District."

The dissent is a little more detailed:

"On October 16, after playing of the game had concluded,
Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, and as advertised, knelt to pray while most BHS players were singing the school’s fight song. He quickly was joined by
coaches and players from the opposing team. Television
news cameras surrounded the group... Members of the public rushed the field to join Kennedy, jumping fences to
access the field and knocking over student band members.
After the game, the District received calls from Satanists
who “‘intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after football games if others were allowed to.’” (Gotta love those Satanists.)

Additionally, "the District Court found that Kennedy himself generated the media coverage by publicizing his dispute with the District in his initial Facebook posting and in his media appearances before the October 16 game."

So the district said that praying on the field after the game was a no-go, although "accommodations that might be mutually satisfactory" were proposed, and Kennedy was invited to offer up his own.

Dissent: "Kennedy did not directly respond or suggest a satisfactory accommodation. Instead, his attorneys told the media
that he would accept only demonstrative prayer on the 50-
yard line immediately after games."

Majority: "After the October 23 game ended, Mr. Kennedy knelt at
the 50-yard line, where “no one joined him,” and bowed his
head for a “brief, quiet prayer.” (The dissent describes the same scene as "Kennedy kneeling on the field alone with players standing nearby."

Majority: "The superintendent informed the District’s
board that this prayer “moved closer to what we want,” but
nevertheless remained “unconstitutional.” Id., at 96. After
the final relevant football game on October 26, Mr. Kennedy
again knelt alone to offer a brief prayer as the players engaged in postgame traditions... While he was
praying, other adults gathered around him on the field." (The dissent notes that these "other adults" were "members of the public, including state representatives who attended the game to support Kennedy" and that "BHS players, after singing the fight song, joined Kennedy at midfield after he stood up from praying.")

On the 28th, they put him on administrative leave for " violating its directives at the October 16, October 23, and October 26 games by kneeling on the field and praying immediately following the games before rejoining the players for postgame talks." The head coach suggested he be fired for, essentially, being insubordinate and a troublemaker, and also himself resigned out of fear "he or his staff would be shot from the crowd or otherwise attacked because of the turmoil created by Kennedy’s media appearances" (which seems like an overreaction to me).

Kennedy then sued "alleging that the District’s actions violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses."

The District "Court concluded that Kennedy had
“chosen a time and event,” the October 16 homecoming
game, that was “a big deal” for students, and then “used
that opportunity to convey his religious views” in a manner
a reasonable observer would have seen as a “public employee . . . leading an orchestrated session of faith.”"

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling, "noting that Kennedy had in fact refused “an accommodation permitting him to pray . . . after the stadium had emptied,” “indicating that it is essential that his speech be delivered in the presence of students and spectators.”

The majority, however, did not interpret the facts this way. They said that "Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers when students were engaged in other activities like singing the school fight song" and that this "suggests those prayers were not delivered as an address to the team, but instead in his capacity as a private citizen." Even though the "prayers took place... on the field of play... what matters is whether Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach," and they claim that his actions in the last three games -- as in, after they told him to stop actively leading prayers -- were private speech, not government speech.

They go on to say that because it was private speech, the district violated his First Amendment rights under a misinterpretation of their own duties under the Establishment Clause to stop people from thinking the district was allowing a coach to, in his official capacity as a district employee, promote his own religion.

Now, given the facts I laid out from both majority and dissent, I think that is a very tendentious characterization of his "praying alone" that ignores the context of his prior actions solo prayer. The dissent argues that just because "BHS students did not join Kennedy in these last three specific prayers, it did not make those events compliant with the Establishment Clause," and that the majority's ruling is only defensible by "drawing a bright line between Kennedy’s years long practice of leading student prayers, which the Court does not defend, and Kennedy’s final three prayers..."

I think they are correct. Nevertheless, even if the majority is too deferential to Kennedy's interpretation of the facts, the holding pertains to "a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students," not to "public school officials... leading students in prayer" (since they claim that he didn't.) So it's not quite as seismic as that.

interesting that the context was a football game @gabapentin I wouldn't have even thought twice about prayer being intertwined with that part of school. I can definitely see teachers attempting this in the near future though

thats funny cuz maybe its my Texas coming out but high school football instinctively seems like the most prayer-adjacent part of school to me lol. like before this case if i went to a high school football game and i actually saw students praying with a coach tbh i would just think "oh i guess he's allowed to do that for some reason"

in any case it definitely does set a precedent to continue stepping over the line just a little bit more, especially if the Court is willing to... "reinterpret" the facts of the case in the most "innocent" way possible