Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


SCOTUS
Seal of SCOTUS.png
Cases by term
Judgeships
Posts: 9
Judges: 9
Judges
Chief: John Roberts
Active: Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh


The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.[1]

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2019. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[2] Delays from the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 caused the court to release opinions into July for the first time since 1996.[3]

The court issued decisions in 63 cases this term. Between the 2007 and 2019 terms, SCOTUS released opinions in 991 cases, averaging 76 cases per year.

The court agreed to hear 74 cases during its 2019-2020 term. Twelve cases were postponed to the 2020-2021 term, due to the coronavirus pandemic. One case, Sharp v. Murphy, was never scheduled for argument and another case, Walker v. United States, was dismissed without argument after the petitioner died.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 12, 2020, that it was closing to the public indefinitely "out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees." On April 13, the court announced it would hear oral arguments by telephone conference in a number of cases from its March and April sittings. The court had postponed the 20 hours of oral argument originally scheduled during these sittings. The delays were "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[4][5] Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

See the sections below for additional information on the October 2019 term of the Supreme Court of the United States.

  1. Cases by circuit: This section lists the cases being heard by the court of origination (e.g., federal appellate courts, federal district courts, state courts, etc.).
  2. Cases by sitting: This section lists the cases being heard by the date of oral argument.
  3. Cases by date of opinion: This section lists the cases by the date the court released an opinion.
  4. Term data: This section provides information on the cases SCOTUS decided, including case names, decisions, vote totals, opinion authors, and courts of origination. It also includes information on SCOTUS case reversal rates.
  5. Case history: This section provides information on previous SCOTUS terms.


Cases by circuit

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the court's jurisdiction. The court has original jurisdiction—when it is the first and only to hear a case—and appellate jurisdiction—when it reviews the decisions of lower courts.[6]

Parties petition SCOTUS to hear a case if they are not satisfied with a lower court's decision. The parties petition the court to grant a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is an "order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case it will hear on appeal."[6][7]

Circuits

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

D.C. Circuit

Federal Circuit

Armed Forces

State and district courts

Original jurisdiction

Where are the cases coming from?

List of argued cases by court of origination - 2019-2020 term
Court Number of cases
United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit 1
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 9
United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit 5
United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 5
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit 5
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 4
United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 1
United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 3
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 9
United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 5
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit 7
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 2
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 5
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 1
State and district courts 11
Original jurisdiction 1
Total 74
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, "Granted & noted list: October term 2019 cases for argument," accessed October 22, 2019

Geographic boundaries

Select a region to learn more about its court of appeals.

United States Court of Appeals for the 1st CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 2nd CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 3rd CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 4th CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 6th CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 7th CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 10th CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 1st CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the 3rd CircuitUS Court of Appeals and District Court map.jpg
Beyond the Headlines: Previewing the October 2019-2020 SCOTUS term
Released October 3, 2019

Cases by sitting

SCOTUS' term is divided into sittings, when the justices hear cases.[8]

October sitting

October 7, 2019

October 8, 2019

October 15, 2019

October 16, 2019

November sitting

November 4, 2019

November 5, 2019

November 6, 2019

November 12, 2019

November 13, 2019

December sitting

December 2, 2019

December 3, 2019

December 4, 2019

December 9, 2019

December 10, 2019

December 11, 2019

January sitting

January 13, 2020

January 14, 2020

January 15, 2020

January 21, 2020

January 22, 2020

February sitting

February 24, 2020

February 25, 2020

February 26, 2020

March 2, 2020

March 3, 2020

March 4, 2020

March sitting (postponed)

On March 16, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the oral arguments scheduled during the March sitting in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here for more information.

The arguments were originally scheduled for the following dates:

March 23, 2020

March 24, 2020

March 25, 2020

March 30, 2020

March 31, 2020

April 1, 2020

April sitting (postponed)

On April 3, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the oral arguments scheduled during the April sitting in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here for more information.

The arguments were originally scheduled for the following dates:

April 20, 2020

April 21, 2020

April 22, 2020

April 27, 2020

April 28, 2020

April 29, 2020

May sitting

On April 13, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments by telephone conference in 13 cases from its March and April sittings, which had previously been postponed. The delays were "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[4][5]

May 4, 2020

May 5, 2020

May 6, 2020

May 11, 2020

May 12, 2020

May 13, 2020

Cases not set for argument

Cases decided without argument

  • Davis v. United States
  • Thompson v. Hebdon
  • Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano
  • Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee
  • Andrus v. Texas
  • Barr v. Lee

Cases removed from argument calendar

Cases postponed to 2020-2021 term

The following cases were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Cases scheduled for next term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the 2020-2021 term on October 5, 2020. Click here for more information.

Cases by date of opinion

October

The court did not deliver opinions in October.

November

November 25, 2019

  • Thompson v. Hebdon (Decided without argument)

December

December 10, 2019

December 11, 2019

January

January 14, 2020

February

February 24, 2020

  • Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano (Decided without argument)

February 25, 2020

February 26, 2020

March

March 3, 2020

March 23, 2020

March 30, 2020

April

April 6, 2020

April 20, 2020

April 23, 2020

April 27, 2020

May

May 7, 2020

May 14, 2020

May 18, 2020

June

June 1, 2020

June 8, 2020

June 15, 2020

June 18, 2020

June 22, 2020

June 25, 2020

June 29, 2020

June 30, 2020

July

July 6, 2020

July 8, 2020

July 9, 2020

July 14, 2020

  • Barr v. Lee (Decided without argument)

Response to the coronavirus pandemic

Covid vnt.png
Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more.


See also: Coronavirus outbreak, 2020

Changes to argument and opinion schedule

Court releases opinions into July

By law, each Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court's 2019-2020 term began on October 7, 2019, and ended on October 5, 2020. Traditionally, the court finishes releasing opinions in June.[2] However, delays from the coronavirus pandemic caused the court to release opinions into July for the first time since 1996. Before that, the last time the court issued opinions into July was in 1988.[3]

Stephen Wermiel, writing for SCOTUSblog, noted that during Chief Justice Warren Burger's tenure (1969-1986), "it was common for terms to run [into July]. Indeed, in 1976 and in every year from 1978 through 1986, the court handed down decisions in the first week of July." During that time, the Supreme Court decided as many as 150 cases in a term.[3] Between 2007 and 2018, SCOTUS released opinions in an average of 77 cases per year.

The court released the term's final opinions on July 9, 2020. Before that, the latest regular date for issuing opinions between 1960 and 2020 was July 7, 1986. The court continued to release opinions until July 6 in 1976 and 1983.[3]

Senators Grassley, Leahy call for continued use of live audio

On May 29, 2020, Senate Judiciary members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked the court to permanently provide live audio of oral arguments even after the coronavirus pandemic. The senators also requested that the court provide live video access to oral arguments. The senators cited two polls indicating widespread support for providing live audio access to the public. "Given this widespread support for access to our nation’s highest court – and the countless contributions it makes towards the civics education of the American public – there is no reason why pro-transparency measures should end when the Court returns to its normal functions," the senators wrote.[9]

Before the coronavirus pandemic, the court released audio and transcripts of oral arguments during a given week on Fridays.

Court announces teleconferences for specific cases

On April 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hold arguments by teleconference for 13 cases from May 4 to May 13 that were previously postponed from the March and April sittings. The court's public information officer said that live audio of the arguments would be made available to the public for the first time in the court's history.[10] Click here for more information on the cases the court decided to hear in May.

On April 28, the court announced new procedures for conducting the oral arguments via conference call. The court used a teleconferencing system to hear oral arguments. Several new procedures were announced, including rules for which Justices will ask questions based on seniority.[11]

Court postpones April sitting

On April 3, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the eight hours of oral argument originally scheduled during its April sitting. In a statement, the court said it would "consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the Term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time."[12]

The court said it would continue to release opinions using the court website, hold regularly scheduled conferences, and issue order lists.[12]

Court postpones March sitting

On March 16, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the 11 hours of oral argument originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[5]

Court closes to the public indefinitely

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 12, 2020, that it was closing to the public indefinitely, beginning at 4:30 p.m. that day. The court posted on its website, "Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public from 4:30 p.m. on March 12, 2020, until further notice." The closure was related to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (abbreviated COVID-19).[13] For more information on government responses to the virus, click here.

Responses to petitions about religious gatherings

See also: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021

Nevada

On July 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by a Nevada church for permission to hold in-person services in excess of COVID-19 capacity limits imposed by Gov. Steve Sisolak (D). The church, in its emergency application to the justices, sought an injunction pending appellate review that would bar enforcement of Directive 021, which would “allow the church to host religious gatherings on the same terms as comparable secular assemblies.” At issue in the case was the church’s argument that the capacity limit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that it “treats at least seven categories of secular assemblies 'where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time' better than religious services." The directive, which imposed a 50% fire-code capacity limit on places of business, such as casinos, restaurants, and movie theaters, limited gatherings at places of worship to a 50-person maximum. The court, in a 5-4 split, rejected the request. The majority made no comment, a common practice when acting on emergency applications. In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state's argument that "allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshippers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow." Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito's dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each wrote separate dissents.[14]

California

South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom: On May 29, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to California's religious gathering limits, which order attendance in churches or places of worship to a maximum of 25% or 100 attendees. The 5-4 decision was joined by Chief Justice Roberts who warned against intervening in emergencies: "Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." Justice Kavanaugh joined the remaining three Republican-appointed justices in dissenting from the ruling, arguing that the California limits "indisputably discriminates against religion."[15]

Noteworthy court announcements and events

Court permits resumption of federal executions

On July 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the Federal Bureau of Prisons to carry out the first federal execution in 17 years, the last having occurred in 2003.[16][17] One year before the ruling, in July 2019, United States Attorney General William Barr directed the Bureau of Prisons to resume capital punishment and to replace the previous standard three-drug lethal injection method with a single drug, pentobarbital. The Justice Department's statement said, "Since 2010, 14 states have used pentobarbital in over 200 executions, and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly upheld the use of pentobarbital in executions as consistent with the Eighth Amendment."[18]

On November 20, 2019, judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction that prevented four federal executions from taking place as scheduled in December. Chutkan said in the ruling that the executions would prevent those convicted from challenging lethal injection in court.[19] The Justice Department appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to lift Chutkan's injunction, sending the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for consideration.[20] In April 2020, the appellate court lifted Chutkan's injunction.[21]

Daniel Lewis Lee, one of the four inmates originally set to be executed in December, was scheduled to receive lethal injection on July 13. That day, Judge Chutkan issued another injunction to halt the execution, ruling that lethal injection by pentobarbital constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus violates the Eighth Amendment.[16][22] The Justice Department appealed the ruling immediately to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld Chutkan's ruling.[22] The Justice Department then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the ruling and allow Lee's execution to proceed. In the unsigned majority opinion, the justices quoted a decision issued in 2019 and wrote, "'Last-minute stays' like that issued this morning 'should be the extreme exception, not the norm.' It is our responsibility 'to ensure that method-of-execution challenges to lawfully issued sentences are resolved fairly and expeditiously,' so that 'the question of capital punishment' can remain with 'the people and their representatives, not the courts, to resolve.' In keeping with that responsibility, we vacate the District Court’s preliminary injunction so that the plaintiffs’ executions may proceed as planned."[23]

Lee's execution took place hours after the Supreme Court's ruling on July 14, in Terre Haute, Indiana.[24] Two more of the four individuals originally scheduled to be executed in December 2019, Wesley Ira Purkey and Dustin Lee Honken, were executed in the following two days.[22]

Court declines to hear cases on qualified immunity doctrine

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant nine relisted cases seeking reexamination of the qualified immunity doctrine. The doctrine was established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) and expanded in later cases.[25] NPR's Nina Totenberg described the doctrine: "The qualified immunity doctrine, as applied to police, initially asks two questions: Did police use excessive force, and if they did, should they have known that their conduct was illegal because it violated a 'clearly established' prior court ruling that barred such conduct?" Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor previously expressed opposition to the doctrine.[26]

Court allows DHS to enforce Remain in Mexico policy

On March 11, 2020, SCOTUS decided to allow the Trump administration to have some asylum-seekers wait in Mexico while U.S. officials process their claims. The ruling in Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab allowed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel to follow the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), called the Remain in Mexico policy, while challenges to the policy worked through the lower courts. The order granting a temporary stay of the injunction said that stay would last until the case came before SCOTUS for a final decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the government’s request for a stay.[27]

Court allows DHS to enforce public charge rule

On January 27, 2020, SCOTUS voted 5-4 to allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to begin enforcing a rule that authorizes the federal government to deny immigrants a visa or a green card if they rely on government assistance.[28]

On August 14, 2019, DHS issued the final rule detailing how federal agencies determine the inadmissibility of immigrants likely to become public charges (e.g. dependent on government assistance).[29] Five federal judges later issued injunctions blocking the rule from taking effect. Appellate courts lifted three of the injunctions in December 2019, but a nationwide injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and a statewide injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remained in effect.[30] On January 13, 2020, DHS requested that the U.S. Supreme Court stay the nationwide injunction issued by Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York.[31]

SCOTUS granted the request for a stay. In a concurring opinion filed with the order, Gorsuch urged lower courts to curtail the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions, arguing in part that the broad orders impact individuals who are not parties to the cases at hand.[28] The decision allows the rule to take effect nationwide pending a final decision in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. The statewide injunction blocking the rule in Illinois remained in effect as of January 28, 2020.[32]

Court agrees to hear case on Louisiana abortion law

See also: Abortion regulations by state

On October 4, 2019, SCOTUS announced that it would hear June Medical Services LLC v. Russo during the 2019-2020 term. The case which involved a challenge to a Louisiana law that established requirements for doctors performing abortions to possess admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The date for oral argument was not announced. On February 7, 2019, the Court voted 5-4 to stay enforcement of the Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014.[33]

Decision to temporarily allow asylum rule implementation

See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

On September 11, 2019, SCOTUS allowed a Trump administration rule to temporarily take effect while legal challenges to the rule were ongoing. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had previously blocked the rule from being implemented in Arizona and California. The Trump administration had asked SCOTUS to allow the government to implement the rule nationwide.[34]

The rule, issued on July 16, 2019, established limitations on migrants who had passed through another country that was not their country of citizenship, nationality, or lawful residence, prohibiting them from seeking asylum at the southern border of the United States.[35]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, publicly dissented. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the rule "topples decades of settled asylum practices."[36] According to SCOTUSblog, the justices did not "indicate whether all seven of the justices who did not publicly dissent had voted in favor of the stay; all we know is that there were at least five votes – the number required for a stay – for the government."[34]


Term data

List of cases

The 2019-2020 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began on October 7, 2019. The following table provides data on the decisions the court delivered during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 SCOTUS term data
Case Opinion author Decision Vote Court of origination
Rotkiske v. Klemm Clarence Thomas affirmed 8-1 3rd Circuit
Peter v. NantKwest Sonia Sotomayor affirmed 9-0 Federal Circuit
Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed 9-0 6th Circuit
Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander Per curiam vacated and remanded NA 2nd Circuit
McKinney v. Arizona Brett Kavanaugh affirmed 5-4 Arizona Supreme Court
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Neil Gorsuch vacated and remanded 9-0 10th Circuit
Hernandez v. Mesa Samuel Alito affirmed 5-4 5th Circuit
Monasky v. Taglieri Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed 9-0 6th Circuit
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma Samuel Alito affirmed 9-0 9th Circuit
Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S. Stephen Breyer vacated and remanded 9-0 5th Circuit
Shular v. United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed 9-0 11th Circuit
Kansas v. Garcia Samuel Alito reversed and remanded 5-4 Kansas Supreme Court
Mathena v. Malvo NA Dismissed NA 4th Circuit
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media Neil Gorsuch vacated and remanded 9-0 9th Circuit
Allen v. Cooper Elena Kagan affirmed 9-0 4th Circuit
Kahler v. Kansas Elena Kagan affirmed 6-3 Kansas Supreme Court
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr Stephen Breyer vacated and remanded 7-2 5th Circuit
Davis v. United States Per curiam vacated and remanded NA 5th Circuit
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. Sonia Sotomayor affirmed 7-2 3rd Circuit
Kansas v. Glover Clarence Thomas reversed and remanded 8-1 Kansas Supreme Court
Babb v. Wilkie Samuel Alito reversed and remanded 8-1 11th Circuit
Ramos v. Louisiana Neil Gorsuch reversed 6-3 Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian John Roberts affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded 7-2 Montana Supreme Court
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacated and remanded 7-2 Federal Circuit
Barton v. Barr Brett Kavanaugh affirmed 5-4 11th Circuit
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund Stephen Breyer vacated and remanded 6-3 9th Circuit
Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Neil Gorsuch vacated and remanded 9-0 Federal Circuit
Maine Community Health Options v. United States Sonia Sotomayor reversed and remanded 8-1 Federal Circuit
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. John Roberts affirmed 5-4 11th Circuit
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York Per curiam vacated and remanded 6-3 2nd Circuit
Kelly v. United States Elena Kagan reversed and remanded 9-0 3rd Circuit
United States v. Sineneng-Smith Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacated and remanded 9-0 9th Circuit
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group Sonia Sotomayor reversed and remanded 9-0 2nd Circuit
Opati v. Republic of Sudan Neil Gorsuch vacated and remanded 8-0 D.C. Circuit
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment LLC (Consolidated with Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico, Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, United States v. Aurelius Investment, and UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico) Stephen Breyer reversed and remanded 9-0 1st Circuit
Nasrallah v. Barr Brett Kavanaugh reversed 7-2 11th Circuit
Banister v. Davis Elena Kagan reversed and remanded 7-2 5th Circuit
Thole v. U.S. Bank Brett Kavanaugh affirmed 5-4 8th Circuit
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC Clarence Thomas reversed and remanded 9-0 11th Circuit
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez Elena Kagan affirmed 9-0 10th Circuit
Thompson v. Hebdon Per curiam vacated and remanded NA 9th Circuit
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano Per curiam granted, vacated, and remanded NA Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee Per curiam application for stay granted 5-4 7th Circuit
United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association Clarence Thomas reversed and remanded 7-2 4th Circuit
Andrus v. Texas Per curiam vacated, and remanded 6-3 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC) Neil Gorsuch reversed and remanded 6-3 11th Circuit
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal) John Roberts vacated in part and reversed in part 5-4 9th Circuit
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission Sonia Sotomayor vacated and remanded 8-1 9th Circuit
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam Samuel Alito reversed and remanded 7-2 9th Circuit
USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International Brett Kavanaugh reversed 5-3 2nd Circuit
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (Consolidated with Russo v. June Medical Services) Stephen Breyer reversed 5-4 5th Circuit
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau John Roberts vacated and remanded 5-4 9th Circuit
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue John Roberts reversed and remanded 5-4 Montana Supreme Court
United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed 8-1 4th Circuit
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc. Brett Kavanaugh affirmed 6-3 4th Circuit
Chiafalo v. Washington Elena Kagan affirmed 9-0 Washington Supreme Court
Colorado Department of State v. Baca Per curiam reversed 8-0 10th Circuit
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (Consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania) Clarence Thomas reversed and remanded 7-2 3rd Circuit
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel) Samuel Alito reversed and remanded 7-2 9th Circuit
McGirt v. Oklahoma Neil Gorsuch reversed 5-4 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Sharp v. Murphy Per curiam affirmed NA 10th Circuit
Trump v. Vance John Roberts affirmed and remanded 7-2 2nd Circuit
Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG) John Roberts vacated and remanded 7-2 D.C. Circuit
Barr v. Lee Per curiam application for a stay granted 5-4 D.C. Circuit


Justice alignment

The following justice alignment table shows justice agreement rates for non-unanimous rulings during the 2019-2020 term. The data does not include agreements in part.

SCOTUS case reversal rates

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued opinions in 69 cases during its October 2019 term. It reversed 46 lower court decisions (66.7%) and affirmed 23. This term's reversal rate was 3.4 percentage points lower than the average rate of reversal since 2007 (70.1%). Ten of the cases originated in the 9th Circuit, the most from any circuit (excluding state courts). The 9th Circuit had nine cases reversed.[37]

SCOTUS decisions by circuit, 2019
Court Decided Affirmed Reversed Percent Reversed
First Circuit 1 0 1 100.0%
Second Circuit 8 2 6 75.0%
Third Circuit 4 2 2 50.0%
Fourth Circuit 4 3 1 25.0%
Fifth Circuit 7 1 6 85.7%
Sixth Circuit 3 3 0 0%
Seventh Circuit 1 0 1 100.0%
Eighth Circuit 1 1 0 0%
Ninth Circuit 10 1 9 90.0%
Tenth Circuit 4 2 2 58.3%
Eleventh Circuit 7 3 4 57.1%
D.C. Circuit 4 1 3 62.8%
Federal Circuit 4 1 3 75.0%
Armed Forces 0 0 0 0%
State Court 11 3 8 72.7%
U.S. District Court 0 0 0 0%
Original Jurisdiction 0 N/A N/A N/A
Total 69 23 46 66.7%

Note: This table is based on SCOTUSblog's Circuit Scorecard for the 2019 term. They note: "For the Circuit Scorecards only, we treat certain consolidated cases as separate decisions rather than as one. For consolidated cases that stemmed from different lower court decisions, we counted the cases separately on this table to most accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s treatment of the precedents below. For cases that were consolidated in the court below, we count the Supreme Court’s decision only once."
Source: SCOTUSblog, "Circuit scorecard," accessed July 14, 2020


Between the 2007 and 2019 terms, SCOTUS released opinions in 993 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 696 times (70.1%) while affirming a lower court decision 289 times (29%). In that time period, SCOTUS decided more cases originating from the 9th Circuit (191) than from any other circuit. The next-most was the 2nd Circuit, which had 73 decisions. During that span, SCOTUS overturned a greater number of cases originating from the 9th Circuit (149), but it overturned a higher percentage of cases originating in the 6th Circuit (79.7%, or 55 of 69 cases).

For more historical term data, see this article.

Opinion authorship

The chart below indicates the number and types of opinions written by each justice during the 2019 term. Justice Roberts and Gorsuch wrote the most opinions with seven each. Justices Thomas, Breyer, and Sotomayor wrote the least, with five opinions each.

5-4 decisions

In this term, the court issued 13 5-4 or 5-3 decisions, 21% of the total opinions released. Those decisions were made by four different configurations of justices. Across these decisions, 69% had a majority made up of all five conservative justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). The rest had a majority made up of the four liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) and one conservative justice.[38]

5-4 opinions over time
Term Number of 5-4 opinions Percent of total opinions Number of different alignments
19 13 21% 4
18 20 28% 10
17 19 26% 5
16 7 10% 3
15 4 5% 2
14 19 26% 7
13 10 14% 7
12 23 29% 7
11 15 20% 7
10 16 20% 4
09 16 19% 7
08 23 29% 7
07 12 17% 6
06 24 33% 6
05 11 12% 7
Average 15 21% 6

Active justices

See also: Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices.

JudgeBornHomeAppointed byActivePreceededLaw school
Alito.jpg
Associate justice 
Samuel Alito		April 1, 1950Trenton, N.J.W. Bush January 31, 2006 - PresentSandra Day O'ConnorYale Law School, 1975
Official roberts CJ.jpg
Chief justice 
John Roberts		January 27, 1955Buffalo, N.Y.W. Bush September 29, 2005 - PresentWilliam RehnquistHarvard Law, 1979
ClarenceThomas.jpg
Associate justice 
Clarence Thomas		June 23, 1948Savannah, Ga.H.W. Bush July 1, 1991 - PresentThurgood MarshallYale Law School, 1974
Stephen Breyer.jpg
Associate justice 
Stephen Breyer		August 15, 1938San Francisco, Calif.Clinton August 3, 1994 - PresentHarry BlackmunHarvard Law School, 1964
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.jpg
Associate justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg		March 15, 1933New York, N.Y.Clinton August 5, 1993 - PresentByron WhiteColumbia Law School, 1959
Elena Kagan.jpg
Associate justice 
Elena Kagan		April 28, 1960New York, N.Y.Obama August 7, 2010 - PresentJohn Paul StevensHarvard Law School, J.D., 1986
Sonia Sotomayor official.jpg
Associate justice 
Sonia Sotomayor		June 25, 1954New York, N.Y.Obama August 6, 2009 - PresentDavid SouterYale Law School, 1979
NeilGorsuch.gif
Associate justice 
Neil Gorsuch		August 29, 1967Denver, Colo.Trump April 10, 2017 - PresentAntonin ScaliaHarvard Law School, 1991
Judge Brett Kavanaugh2.jpg
Associate justice 
Brett Kavanaugh		February 12, 1965Washington, D.C.Trump October 6, 2018 - PresentAnthony KennedyYale Law School, 1990



Case history

2018-2019 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019

In the 2018-2019 term, SCOTUS agreed to consider 75 cases. The court heard oral argument in 72 cases and decided three cases without argument. Click here for more information.

2017-2018 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018

In the 2017-2018 term, SCOTUS agreed to hear 71 cases. Ultimately, the justices heard argument in 69 of those cases. Click here for more information.

2016-2017 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017

In the 2016-2017 term, SCOTUS agreed to hear 71 cases. Click here for more information.

The court delivered 61 opinions.

  • Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy, wrote the most opinions—eight each.
  • Justices Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Thomas each wrote seven opinions.
  • Justice Gorsuch wrote one opinion.

The court delivered eight per curiam opinions.


See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The New York Times, "On Language' Potus and Flotus," October 12, 1997
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 SCOTUSblog, "SCOTUS for law students: Still deciding in July," July 7, 2020
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Press release from April 13, 2020," accessed April 14, 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from March 16, 2020," accessed March 16, 2020
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Administrative Office of the United States Courts, "Supreme Court Procedures," accessed May 23, 2019
  7. ↑ Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "Understanding the Federal Courts," accessed May 23, 2019
  8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "The Court and Its Procedures," accessed May 23, 2019
  9. ↑ United States Senate, "Letter from Senators Grassley and Leahy to Chief Justice John Roberts," May 29, 2020
  10. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court sets cases for May telephone arguments, will make live audio available," April 13, 2020
  11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Press release from April 28, 2020," April 28, 2020
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from April 3, 2020," accessed April 3, 2020
  13. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court to close to public in pandemic," March 12, 2020
  14. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak: On Application for Injunctive Relief," July 24, 2020
  15. ↑ Politico, "Roberts joins court's liberals to deny California church's lockdown challenge," May 30, 2020
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 New York Times, "Supreme Court, 5-4, Lifts Block on Federal Execution," July 13, 2020
  17. ↑ Associated Press, "First federal execution in 17 years; another set Wednesday," July 14, 2020
  18. ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Federal Government to Resume Capital Punishment After Nearly Two Decade Lapse," July 25, 2019
  19. ↑ New York Times, "Judge Blocks Scheduled Executions of Federal Death Row Inmates," November 21, 2019
  20. ↑ Reuters, "U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to resume federal executions," December 7, 2019
  21. ↑ UPI, "Appeals court lifts injunction on federal executions," April 7, 2020
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 IndyStar, "Federal executions resumed in Terre Haute after 17 years. Here's what you should know," July 22, 2020
  23. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. Daniel Lewis Lee, et al. on application for stay or vacatur," July 14, 2020
  24. ↑ The Hill, "First federal prisoner in 17 years executed hours after Supreme Court decision," July 14, 2020
  25. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Qualified immunity," accessed June 17, 2020
  26. ↑ NPR, "Supreme Court Will Not Reexamine Doctrine That Shields Police In Misconduct Suits," June 15, 2020
  27. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court grants government’s request to enforce “remain in Mexico” policy," March 11, 2020
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 The Hill, "Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with 'public charge' rule," January 27, 2020
  29. ↑ Federal Register, "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," August 14, 2019
  30. ↑ The Hill, "Second appeals court backs lifting injunction on Trump 'public charge' rule," December 9, 2019
  31. ↑ CNN, "Trump asks Supreme Court to allow public charge rule to go into effect," January 13, 2020
  32. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce 'public charge' immigration rule," January 27, 2020
  33. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Justices grant new cases for upcoming term, will tackle Louisiana abortion dispute," accessed October 4, 2019
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 SCOTUSblog, "Court allows government to enforce restrictive asylum rule nationwide (UPDATED)," September 11, 2019
  35. ↑ Vox, "The Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the US asylum system," September 12, 2019
  36. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant," September 11, 2019
  37. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Circuit scorecard," accessed July 14, 2020
  38. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "5-4 cases," accessed July 14, 2020
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2019-2020&oldid=9736069"