dChan
Anonymous ID: 4e524f June 21, 2024, 7:24 a.m. No.21060496   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0586 >>0701

SCotUS Today

  1. Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (Jackson 5-4) Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Barrett dissent.

Long-running water dispute over the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande, and in particular efforts by Texas and New Mexico to settle the dispute over the objections of the federal government.

Court denies states motion to enter consent decree.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/141orig_d18f.pdf

 

  1. Department of State v. Munoz (Barrett 6-3)

Sotomayor, Kagan and jackson dissent.

Whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen violates a constitutionally protected right of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly explained its decision to deny the visa. Government eventually revealed that it believed that he was a member of the gang MS-13.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-334_e18f.pdf

 

  1. Erlinger v. United States (Gorsuch, 6-3)

Kavanaugh, Alito and Jackson dissent.

Indiana man who in 1991 pleaded guilty to four counts of burglary arising from four nonresidential burglaries that were charged together and that occurred in the same city over the course of a week. The court holds that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-370_i4dj.pdf

 

  1. Smith v Arizona (Kagan, 9-0)

Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence– here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf

 

  1. United States v. Rahimi (CJ Roberts 8-1)

Thomas dissents.

The question comes to the court in the case of a Texas man who was the subject of a civil protective order after he dragged his then-girlfriend back to his car when she tried to leave after an argument. When the man, Zackey Rahimi, became a suspect in a series of shootings, police searched his home, where they found a rifle and a pistol – which he was specifically barred from having under the terms of the protective order.

The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf