U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

December 2017 Archives

This past year has been filled with SCOTUS decisions, like nearly every year before it, that have resolved some pretty big issues. One big notable change at the Court this year includes the introduction of electronic filing.

The High Court was mobilized on several occasions to review the Executive Order travel bans. And let both anti-gun and gun rights activists down by refusing to hear significant Second Amendment cases.

Below, you can reminisce and remind yourself about some of the other more notable decisions of 2017.

Have you ever dreamed of eating like a Supreme Court justice? Well, now's your chance! A newly released SCOTUS cookbook has found its way into the United States Supreme Court Historical Society's gift shop.

Table for 9 includes over 40 recipes and plenty of curious information about the justices of the High Court throughout history, including the most recent justice, Neil Gorsuch's recipe for English Marmalade. The book also releases some never-before seen photographs including one of the justices preparing to eat a 28 pound salmon that Justice Breyer caught and served to his fellow justices.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to add a handful of cases to their docket. Among the seven new cases is a familiar issue: partisan gerrymandering.

While the Gil v. Whitford case is still under submission, the High Court will hear a slightly different challenge to the practice of political parties gerrymandering voting districts after winning a controlling majority in a state's legislature. Gil dealt with an equal protection challenge, while the new case, Benisek v. Lamone, deals with a First Amendment challenge.

SCOTUS Won't Hear LGBT Workplace Discrimination Case

LGBT rights attorneys are not giving up, but Jameka Evans' sex discrimination case is definitely over.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined her petition without comment after the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her case. Evans had argued her employer discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation and nonconformity to gender norms.

"Under our prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a binding precedent in this Circuit unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court," the appeals court said in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital.

The closely watched Masterpiece Cakeshop case may be a far cry from Masterpiece Theater, but all eyes were certainly on Justice Kennedy during the case's oral argument. Commentators have long expected that Justice Kennedy would be the swing vote deciding the matter.

Unfortunately for the commentators, Kennedy did not provide a very clear indication of any potential leanings. In fact, he seemed to swing back and forth during the arguments, appearing to support either side at various times.

In what may come as a surprise to many, the third travel ban issued via executive order has been temporarily cleared by SCOTUS in a pair of unexpected Monday morning orders. And, if your head is spinning at this point, wondering how in the world that happened, don't worry, you weren't meant to see this one coming.

In an emergency appeal filed by the DOJ days before Thanksgiving, it asked the High Court to stay the preliminary injunctions issued by the district courts in Hawaii and Maryland. While opponents of the ban did their best to fight it, SCOTUS ruled that the preliminary injunctions should be lifted pending the resolution of the Fourth and Ninth Circuit appeals. Also, as you might have expected, Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented and would have denied the requested stay.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the Christie v. NCAA matter. The questions asked by the justices and their responses are leading commentators to believe the High Court could very well legalize sports gambling not just in Jersey, but nationwide.

Some justices were rather skeptical of the argument that the 1992 federal gaming prohibition was an overreach of Congress's authority to regulate state activity, and particularly what that would mean for similar congressional enactments. But, as reports have noted, other justices, including Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Roberts and Alito, were much more receptive.