Subscription pricing
A lot of what we study on the LSAT can feel a bit abstract, esoteric, or even pointless sometimes. That can make studying frustrating and difficult to connect with our real objective: law school. It always helps me to know that things I'm learning aren't completely useless, so maybe some of you will be interested in this case the Supreme Court granted cert on. (Granting cert just means they agreed to hear it. No one will explain that to you in school, but they will just assume you understand. Now you know!) Tens of thousands of people have been sentenced under the provision in question, and their lives will be dramatically impacted by the Court's decision. So these sorts of things matter. A lot. Great opportunity to review the exclusive "or."
4
2 comments
This case was just decided, if anyone is interested to know what "and" means.
In a 6-3 split decision, the Court has ruled that "and" means "and." Very bad news for tens of thousands of low-level drug offenders sentenced under the statute in question, but there you have it.
Kagan wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Gorsuch dissented and was joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
this is a very important post! i love listening to supreme court oral arguments and trying to see how some of the reasoning connects to LSAT concepts. A great example is the case King V Burwell from 2013. the issue before the court was about how to interpret the words "the state" as they apply to ACA insurance exchanges established by each state. does the state mean the (individual) STATE or does it mean "the state" ? Justice Kagen asked a great question to Michael Carvin ; the question was essentially an analogy involving her clerks writing her a memo which paralleled the logic of the federal statute. parallel logic...using analogy......hmm....sound familiar? good stuff!