Nobody liked or interacted with this feature much on twitter but i feel like i should reintroduce Ugarles' One-post SCOTUS summaries. The decisions have started coming in and so far the early results are mostly not bad. Don't get it twisted - they will get bad. That's probably why these are early. - ThreadSky

ugarles.bsky.social • 80 days ago

Nobody liked or interacted with this feature much on twitter but i feel like i should reintroduce Ugarles' One-post SCOTUS summaries. The decisions have started coming in and so far the early results are mostly not bad. Don't get it twisted - they will get bad. That's probably why these are early.

Comments

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

New thread for February:
2/21/25: Williams v Reed - Ps sued AL DOL for taking forever to process unemployment claims. AL courts dismissed on failure-to-exhaust grounds, despite that failure to process at all was the problem. SCOTUS reversed, 5-4 (Kav), finding an appealable constructive denial.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

CT wrote for SA, CT and ACB dissent, in part quibbling with the record below, in part saying the state interpretation of a state rule was unappealable, and in part arguing that the Alabama exhaustion rule is general and was not purpose-built to avoid 1983.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

2/21/25: Hungary v Simon - Hungary appealed FSIA Jx ruling in a case about Nazi-era looting. Hungary allegedly expropriated Ps assets, comingled funds then later spent $ in US. SCOTUS reversed; FSIA requires a trace of the stolen assets to particular spending in the US for Jx. Unanimous, per SS.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

High bar, but that's why it is hard to litigate decades old claims, even w/r/t Nazi looting.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

2/21/25: Wisconsin Bell v US ex rel. Heath - FCA action alleging WB overcharged schools for telecom. WB argued USA is a pass-through for a fee to all carriers to subsidize schools, doesn't spend its own money. SCOTUS slapped them down, noting $100M from Treasury and money recouped from prior cases.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

CT wrote a concurrence to put a marker down on some issues that the court didn't need to reach (with Kav and, in part, SA). Kav wrote a concurrence (with CT joining) to question the constitutionality of qui tam cases generally.

imaginehimhappy.bsky.social•80 days ago

If only they had crypto apes in the 1930s...

johnpontoon.bsky.social•80 days ago

I feel like that was a TWO post summary. Am I a bad person?

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

this was covered

johnpontoon.bsky.social•80 days ago

Then did people say I was bad or not?

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

we don't need to reach that issue

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

1/15/25: EMD Sales v Carrera - Sales reps challenged designation as "outside employees," are an exception to federal OT requirements under a "clear and convincing" standard. EMD asked SCOTUS to apply easier prepoderance standard and SCOTUS obliged. Unanimous. NG wrote a weird concurrence anyway.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

The result in EMD Sales is a bad result for employees but not necessarily a bad rule generally? The case turned on the fact that the preponderance standard is the default for civil litigation and there was no clear congressional instruction to use the higher standard for FLSA cases.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

NB: I often need more than one post. The original conceit was (and still is) unsustainable.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

1/15/25: Royal Canin USA v Wullschleger - W sued pet food company for fed and state claims. RC removed to fed court. W amended to remove federal claims and asked for remand. Unanimous, by EK: if there are no federal claims, no supplementary jurisdiction. Remand required. Good for plaintiffs.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

1/17/25: TikTok v Garland - mass data collection by a foreign sovereign for TikTok ban is content-neutral rationale for divestiture regulation, does not require strict scrutiny, passes intermediate scrutiny. Ducks the algorithm-as-1A question entirely since the data rationale is sufficient.

ugarles.bsky.social•80 days ago

SS concurred to say "don't assume without deciding that 1A is implicated because it obviously is." NG concurred to say "we ducked the 1A algorithm question but it's obviously a content restriction but the independent rationale to uphold is enough." He has other quibbles and questions as is his wont.

tapirtrouble.bsky.social•80 days ago

It's still pretty impressive, given the word limits. I'm currently struggling to summarize academic papers.

imaginehimhappy.bsky.social•80 days ago

I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex legal issue into a simple yes or no answer.

dankeevy.bsky.social•80 days ago

Spoon full of sugar, before it's illegal to be black, was not the Marie Poppins song of my youth

pumpkinpal.bsky.social•80 days ago

real heads know the good ones are the ones that don't matter, and they're there because they provide cover for the professors to claim things are still FINE ACTUALLY

veryimportant.lawyer•80 days ago

We are living in the A New Hope part of the trilogy feeling apprehensive about when the Empire is going to Strike Back

michaelpg.bsky.social•80 days ago

I love how SCOTUS approaches writing decisions the way I approach emails to my boss, with the ones I really don't want to send coming out "at the end of the term" (Friday at 445 pm)