Source: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__March_21_2018
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:11:43+00:00

Document:
This live blog features discussion of the two cases decided on this day: Ayestas v. Davis and Marinello v. United States.
Good morning! Welcome to our live blog. The federal government is closed, but the Supreme Court is open.
I am unfortunately not at the Court because of the weather, but we will do our best.
Is there a reason why the court announces opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday as opposed to just on one day in a given week?
The D.C. Circuit is closed today, but not SCOTUS!
so after today , the next opinion day is 26th for this month. is that correct and the next one in April?
Does the "our jurisdiction is so vast it might be raining somewhere" (for when the justices drink wine at lunch) apply to snow?
When was the last time the Court closed unexpectedly (weather, gov't shutdown, etc)? I can't think of it happening at all recently.
The transcript from yesterday's argument suggests that both the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy chastized Justice Sotomayor. I know such comments are rare. Does anyone track them to see if there are patterns?
What is your guess on why Dimaya is taking so long to decide?
Wonder if arguments ever had to be continued because counsel stuck somewhere due to weather etc.
One box of opinions today, apparently. The number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions.
A question: if the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple in Colorado, does it mean that family-owned, private businesses nationwide can put up a "No gay please!" sign at their front stores? How extensive is the ramification of such a ruling? Or is it something less severe than expected?
CNN's Ariane de Vogue reports on Twitter that there is just one box today.
For those of you who are new here, the number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions that we expect. It's not perfect, however, because opinions can be very short or very long, which would skew the count.
We have the first opinion -- Ayestas v. Davis.
Good heavens, I thought for a second that Cherry Blossom Festival was a case I hadn't heard of.
It is by Alito, and it is unanimous -- although Sotomayor concurs, joined by Ginsburg.
This is a capital case out of Texas, in which the inmate argued that he was wrongfully denied funding for investigative services needed to prove that he was entitled to federal habeas relief.
Justice Souter tried to drive to work during a blizzard and got stuck. As a New Hampshireite (?) he thought he could outdo the snow, I guess.
He sought funding under a federal law that makes funds available if they are "reasonably necessary," but he was denied the money. The Court today holds that the lower courts applied the wrong legal standard and sends the case back for additional proceedings.
Second and final opinion is in Marinello v. United States.
It is by Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
That means 7-2, although those of you who follow me on Twitter know that my math is sometimes suspect.
The Court holds that to convict someone under the Omnibus Clause, which bars someone from obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, the government must prove that the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would begin.
"In our view," Breyer writes, the term "due administration" of the tax code "does not cover routine administrative procedures that are near-universally applied to all taxpayers, such as the ordinary processing of income tax returns. Rather, the clause as a whole refers to specific interference with targeted governmental tax-related proceedings, such as a particular investigation or audit."
The Sotomayor concurrence in Ayestas argues that the petitioner should win on the issue the Court remanded to the Fifth Circuit (application of the correct standard in a funding-for-investigation question in a capital case); the Thomas dissent in Marinello argues that the Omnibus Clause has a broader effect and criminalizes obstruction even if you don't know about a pending case, audit, etc.
That is all for today. As I wrote earlier, we could get opinions next Tuesday and/or Wednesday, but we won't know until Friday.
To be clear, no sports betting case today.
We are still waiting on three cases from October: Epic Systems v. Lewis, Sessions v. Dimaya, and Jesner v. Arab Bank.
That's all the opinions for today, folks. I'll hang out and answer questions for a few minutes.
Ayestas was argued on October 30 but was technically part of the November sitting.
what do you mean by dissent?
To be clear, Ayestas v. Davis - affirmed and Marinello v. United States - reversed and remanded?
Why didn't the supreme court take the Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and link it with the already scheduled Hawaii v Trump for next month since both are dealing with the same issue. However, even though the 4th circuit ruled late in Maryland, they have part of the answer that was asked by the justices in regards to the establishment clause. Do you think they will take the case and link it on the 25th of April?
Okay, that's all for me for today. Thanks so much for joining us, and hopefully we will be back here again next week.
What other cases from October still need to be decided besides Masterpiece?
Hi all, that's all we've got for live-blogging this morning. We may be back next week -- we'll know on Friday.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.