The U.S. Supreme Court issued six opinions this morning. No Elonis yet, unfortunately. Here are the criminal and related ones:
Henderson v. United States, No. 13-1487: When the defendant has been convicted of a felony and can no longer legally possess firearms, and his guns have been seized by the government, "a court may approve the transfer of a felon's guns consistently with ยง922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons." Unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, reversing USCA11.
San Francisco v. Sheehan, No. 13-1412: The case involves police use of force against a mentally ill person who "began acting erratically and threatened to kill her social worker." A question about the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act was dismissed as improvidently granted when the City shifted its position between the certiorari petition (request to take up the case) and the briefing on the merits. On the Fourth Amendment question, the individual police officers were granted qualified immunity.
Justice Alito wrote the opinion for six Justices, reversing the Ninth Circuit (and reinstating the decision of District Judge Charles Breyer) in part. Justices Scalia and Kagan would dump the whole case because they are seriously ticked off at San Francisco for its bait-and-switch on the question presented. Justice Breyer recused himself.
Coleman v. Tollefson, No. 13-1333: Indigent plaintiffs can generally file civil suits without paying the filing fee (in forma pauperis), but this privilege is so commonly abused by prisoners that Congress created a "three strikes" rule against IFP status for prisoners who have had three suits dismissed as frivolous. Is a suit that has been dismissed but has an appeal pending a strike? Yes. Justice Breyer wrote the unanimous opinion affirming USCA6. "The vast majority of the other Courts of Appeals" are wrong. So much for the "majority view."
Likely next opinion day is the day after Memorial Day.
Henderson v. United States, No. 13-1487: When the defendant has been convicted of a felony and can no longer legally possess firearms, and his guns have been seized by the government, "a court may approve the transfer of a felon's guns consistently with ยง922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons." Unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, reversing USCA11.
San Francisco v. Sheehan, No. 13-1412: The case involves police use of force against a mentally ill person who "began acting erratically and threatened to kill her social worker." A question about the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act was dismissed as improvidently granted when the City shifted its position between the certiorari petition (request to take up the case) and the briefing on the merits. On the Fourth Amendment question, the individual police officers were granted qualified immunity.
Justice Alito wrote the opinion for six Justices, reversing the Ninth Circuit (and reinstating the decision of District Judge Charles Breyer) in part. Justices Scalia and Kagan would dump the whole case because they are seriously ticked off at San Francisco for its bait-and-switch on the question presented. Justice Breyer recused himself.
Coleman v. Tollefson, No. 13-1333: Indigent plaintiffs can generally file civil suits without paying the filing fee (in forma pauperis), but this privilege is so commonly abused by prisoners that Congress created a "three strikes" rule against IFP status for prisoners who have had three suits dismissed as frivolous. Is a suit that has been dismissed but has an appeal pending a strike? Yes. Justice Breyer wrote the unanimous opinion affirming USCA6. "The vast majority of the other Courts of Appeals" are wrong. So much for the "majority view."
Likely next opinion day is the day after Memorial Day.
Six opinions today, I think. And I am starting to fear no opinion has 5 votes in Elonis
Yes, one more was posted after I had begun the post, and I didn't go back and fix it. Thanks for the correction.
Could be a fractured opinion, but not necessarily. I certainly hope not.