Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 21 (complete)
<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 21 (complete)" title="Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 21 (complete)" style="float:right;" decoding="async" />On Friday, June 21, we were live as the court released five opinions in cases from the current term. In Texas v. New Mexico, the court upholds the U.S.’s objections to a consent decree that would resolve the dispute over each state’s allocation of the...</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-friday-june-21/">Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 21 (complete)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
On Friday, June 21, we were live as the court released five opinions in cases from the current term.
In Texas v. New Mexico, the court upholds the U.S.’s objections to a consent decree that would resolve the dispute over each state’s allocation of the waters of the Rio Grande.
The court rules 6-3 in Department of State v. Munoz that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.
In Erlinger v. United States, the court rules that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Smith v. Arizona, the court rules that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order in United States v. Rahimi.
Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.
<div><img width="300" height="200" src="https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-300x200.jpg" class="attachment-medium size-medium wp-post-image" alt="Banky W and Attah" decoding="async" style="margin-bottom: 15px;" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Banky-W-and-Attah-2048x1365.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></div>
<p>The Appeal Court sitting in Lagos State on Tuesday declared the Labour Party (LP) candidate, Thaddeus Atta, as the duly elected member of the House of Representatives representing Eti Osa Federal Constituency. Recall that the National Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos, had in September declared the election inconclusive. The tribunal ordered […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.naijanews.com/2023/11/07/breaking-pdps-banky-w-apcs-obanikoro-lose-to-labour-party-at-appeal-court/">PDP’s Banky W, APC’s Obanikoro Lose To Labour Party At Appeal Court</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.naijanews.com">Naija News</a>.</p>
The leader of Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party has accused Germany and France of having a “strong inclination” toward Moscow and demanded that Germany…
<p><img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/supremecourt-3-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Only named defendants’ profits can be awarded in trademark suit, justices rule" title="Only named defendants’ profits can be awarded in trademark suit, justices rule" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/supremecourt-3-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/supremecourt-3-scaled-1-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/supremecourt-3-scaled-1-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/supremecourt-3-scaled-1-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" />The issue in Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers is whether a federal court calculating the defendant’s profits in a trademark infringement lawsuit can include all the profits of related entities in the same corporate group. Justice Elena Kagan’s succinct opinion for a unanimous court squarely...</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/only-named-defendants-profits-can-be-awarded-in-trademark-suit-justices-rule/">Only named defendants’ profits can be awarded in trademark suit, justices rule</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
