This morning the Supreme Court issued just one opinion, in the prisoner litigation case Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez. At this point in the year, we would normally expect the court to issue all of its remaining decisions over the next three-and-a-half weeks. But because the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the court to cancel its March and April argument sessions and hold a rare May argument session, it’s not clear whether the justices will issue all of their opinions by the end of June, or instead continue into early July. As of today, the justices have approximately 19 opinions left to release. (We don’t know, for example, whether they will issue one opinion or two for the LGBT employment discrimination cases argued in October.) Here is a list of the cases that have not yet been decided, along with (when available) information about who may be writing the decisions.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Bostock v. Clayton County (consolidated with Altitude Express v. Zarda) (argued October 8, 2019): Whether federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh have not yet written opinions for the court’s October session. Another case argued in October, Mathena v. Malvo, was dismissed in February without a decision, which means that at least one of those justices will finish the term without an opinion from October.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal (argued November 12, 2019): Challenge to the Trump administration’s to end the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Roberts is the only member of the court who has not yet written an opinion for November.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (argued January 22, 2020): Challenge to a decision by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating a tax-credit program because the scholarships created by the program could be used at religious schools. Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer have not yet written opinions for January; because the January argument session only had eight arguments, one of them will not write an opinion.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association (consolidated with Atlantic Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association) (argued February 24, 2020): Whether the Forest Service has the power to grant rights-of-way through national-forest lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (argued March 2, 2020): Whether a federal law that limits judicial review of expedited deportation orders in habeas corpus proceedings violates the Constitution’s suspension clause.
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (argued March 3, 2020): Challenge to the leadership structure of the CFPB.
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (argued March 3, 2020): Whether the SEC can seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” for a violation of the securities laws.
June Medical Services v. Russo (consolidated with Russo v. June Medical Services) (argued March 4, 2020): Challenge to the constitutionality of a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at nearby hospitals; and whether abortion providers have the right to bring the challenge on behalf of their patients.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com (argued May 4, 2020): Whether the addition of “.com” to an otherwise generic term by an online business can create a protectable trademark.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (argued May 5, 2020): Whether the federal government can require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that receive federal funds to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
Little Sisters of the Poor Sts. Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania) (argued May 6, 2020): Whether the expansion of the conscience exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violated the ACA and the laws governing federal administrative agencies.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (argued May 6, 2020): Whether an exception for government-debt collection to a federal law that bars robocalls to cellphones is unconstitutional.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (consolidated with St. James School v. Biel) (argued May 11, 2020): Whether courts can hear employment discrimination claims brought by teachers at Catholic elementary schools.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (argued May 11, 2020): Whether land set up in the 19th century in eastern Oklahoma for the Creek Nation remains a reservation for purposes of a federal law that requires some major crimes committed on a reservation by or against Indians to be prosecuted as federal crimes.
Trump v. Mazars USA (consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank) (argued May 12, 2020): Whether congressional committees have the authority to issue subpoenas to the president’s accountant and creditors for financial records belonging to the president and his business entities.
Trump v. Vance (argued May 12, 2020): Whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain the president’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation.
Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca (argued May 13, 2020): Whether state “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs, are constitutional. Although both cases involve the same issue, they were argued separately because Justice Sonia Sotomayor is recused from the Colorado case.
