The SC handed down decisions today. I'm at work. I hope someone gets to them.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Thanks.

EveryKneeShallBowHat Retweeted

Big news here: The Supreme Court OVERTURNS the precedent that a "watershed" rule of criminal procedure may apply retroactively. That's a major change to retroactivity precedent. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5807_086c.pdf

Link to tweet

Kavanaugh (left) faults Kagan for dissenting in Ramos, which required unanimous convictions, then supporting its retroactive application today. Kagan (right) is not pleased with this accusation of inconsistency. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5807_086c.pdf

Link to tweet

[former9thward]

1. Four decisions

Two of them somewhat technical. The tweet in the OP somewhat summarizes the Edwards decision. Disappointing for many people. The last case, Caniglia, was a case where cops seized guns from a man who may have been suicidal, without a warrant. The court, in an unanimous decision by Thomas, said that was illegal.

Edwards v. Vannoy (19-5807)
The jury-unanimity rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.


BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (19-1189)
Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. §1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, §1442, the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the District Court.


CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS (19-930)
A suit to enjoin IRS Notice 2016–66 does not trigger the Anti-Injunction Act even though a violation of the Notice may result in a tax penalty.


Caniglia v. Strom (20-157)
Neither the holding nor logic of Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, justifies the removal of Caniglia’s firearms from his home by police officers under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.