SCOTUS Watch: the ‘Big 6’ will be announced on Thursday, Friday and Monday (Updated)

SupremeCourtThe U.S. Supreme Court today cleared away almost all of the low lying fruit, leaving the “Big 6” decisions to be announced this Thursday or next Monday.

UPDATE: The Court has added Friday as well!

This Court really loves all the drama queen attention.

There is no way to predict which opinions will be announced on which day, or what combination of opinions will be announced on each day. But there will be landmark decisions announced on both Thursday, Friday and Monday. A week from today all the suspense will be over, and the next round of games will begin!

Here are the remaining opinions to be issued (h/t SCOTUSblog.com):

Johnson v. U.S., No. 13-7120

Issue(s): (1) Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (2) Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, No. 13-1371

Issue(s): Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955

Issue(s): (1) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious; (2) whether the plurality stay standard of Baze v. Rees applies when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze; and (3) whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46

Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-49

Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

To be announced together under the Michigan v. EPA case name citation.

King v. Burwell, No. 14-114

Issue(s): Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Note: The four same-sex marriage appeals are to be announced together under the Oberkefell v. Hodges case name citation.

Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562

Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Comments are closed.