My take is the Court will rule that President's have immunity for official Article II acts. Both sides basically already agreed to this point in oral arguments. Court will then say it's up to Congress to immunize the President from any other acts it wishes for President's to be immune from. There may be other acts in the outer edge of official acts but it's up to Congress and not the Court to determine what is or isnt. The Court will then remand the case and leave it to the trial Court to determine if what Trump did was an Article 2 act or not. Maybe I'm being to practical

Between when Scotus decided to hear the immunity case at the end of Feb. and now, I was worried that even the three liberal justices were in favor of hearing the immunity claim and holding off on it for seven weeks. However, during the oral arguments I noticed some clues that, to me, indicate that at least Justice Jackson opposed hearing the immunity case back in Feb, or at the very least, opposed waiting seven weeks before hearing the arguments. First, she mentioned at one point that the US under Trump was a regime. Second, she, towards the end, asked if this was the right case to draw the line for what's an "official act". I think these are both clues that indicate that Jackson opposed hearing the immunity case and/or opposed waiting until late Apr. to hold the arguments. Would you agree with me? Unfortunately, I still remain unsure where Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood on wanting to hear this case as well as the scheduling, but I'm relieved over the fact that (unless you all disagree with me) Justice Jackson at least didn't want to aid Trump in delaying the trial.

LISTEN TO ORAL ARGUMENTS HERE - CSPAN [10AM Eastern]

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream

​

Question presented to the Court:

Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

​

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioner Donald J. Trump

Joint appendix

Brief of respondent United States

Reply of petitioner Donald J. Trump

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". Keep this in mind when considering reporting comments for "low quality".

Our other rules apply as normal.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court orders/judgements involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts, though they may still be discussed here.

​

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- the name of the case / link to the ruling

- a brief summary or description of the questions presented

​

​

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

LISTEN TO ORAL ARGUMENTS HERE [10AM Eastern]

Question presented to the Court:

Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Mike Moyle, et al.

Brief of petitioner Idaho

Brief of respondent United States

Reply of petitioners Mike Moyle, et al.

Reply of petitioner Idaho

Resources:

Text of the Defense of Life Act

Text of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

Honestly it was kind of disheartening watching our government officials behave like that.

Throughout the entire arguments the justices were constantly cutting off the attorneys to snap back at them, leading them through inane hypotheticals hoping to trick them, showboating for sound bites, etc.

I guess I had this idea in mind that the justices would be eager to hear the attorneys arguments to discover new relevant information, but it seemed like every single one of them seemed like they had already made up their mind on the issue and were just irritated they had to go through the motions. It all just seemed very partisan and predetermined.

Good afternoon all I hope you all are having a great day and a great week overall. This is a mod post with an announcement of our next live threads. We always had a plan to do a live thread for the Trump case but in a post by one of the other mods we asked what other cases you guys wanted us to do. We are going to deliver. On Wednesday at 9 am we will post a live thread for Moyle v Idaho. Thank you guys for your participation in that thread and I am glad you guys enjoy the live threads and much as we do. Please do note as I say in every one of these posts that our quality rules will be relaxed but our other rules still apply. Thank you guys so much and I hope you have a great rest of your day.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

​

​

• Simple, straight forward questions that could be resolved in a single response (E.g., "What is a GVR order?"; "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (E.g., "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal context or input from OP (E.g., Polls of community opinions, "What do people think about [X]?")

​

​

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Good morning Amici,

The following oral arguments will be heard this week at the Supreme Court.

Currently, the plan is to have a live thread for Trump v. United States, but additional threads can be created if there is an interest in discussing any of the other cases.

Also, feel free to provide input on how we operate the 'oral argument commentary' threads in general!

###MONDAY 4/22

Smith v. Spizzirri - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson - Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

###TUESDAY 4/23

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.

Department of State v. Muñoz - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.

###WEDNESDAY 4/24 [LIVE THREAD CONFIRMED]

Moyle v. United States - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.

###THURSDAY 4/25 [LIVE THREAD CONFIRMED]

Trump v. United States - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Post-Ruling Activities' thread!

These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for discussion involving downstream governmental activities in response to (or preceding) Supreme Court rulings.

​

To facilitate discussion, it is recommended that top-level comments provide necessary context and the name of the case that action pertains to.

​

Discussion should address the legal merits of the topics at hand as they relate to new Supreme Court precedent.

​

Subreddit rules apply as always.

Let’s say that the Supreme Court rules that a fetus is legally a human being, and thus all abortion procedures are unconstitutional. What would happen if the lower courts in protest, refused to uphold that interpretation of the law? In a scenario like this, would another branch of to intervene?

This is a weird question,

When there is a circuit split, and the Supreme Court moves to resolve the issue, what is the case usually called in the Supreme Court. Seeing that there are two different cases at hand. So for example, (completely made up) in Johnson V. Obamacare, the 9th circuit rules that section 8 of Obamacare is unconstitutional under the first amendment, and in Madison V. Obamacare the 10th circuit rules that section 8 is constitutional under the first amendment. When the Supreme Court resolves the issue, does it called the case Johnson or Madison.

Sorry for the super specific question.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! These weekly threads are intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court orders/judgements involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts, though they may still be discussed here.

​

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- the name of the case / link to the ruling

- a brief summary or description of the questions presented

​

​

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Hello all regarding state v Prouse they go on and on how a liscense checkpoints violate the fourth amendment but then say that they can develop methods of neutral formulas are used, to me they are vague on the issues and they give 2 very different opinions , does this case leave room to fight the constitutionality of a license and registration checkpoint?