Someone asked yesterday "What happens to SCOTUS decisions that have already been decided?"

[napi21]

I just cane across this article.

The justices generally vote for a case's outcome at a conference after oral argument, after which the chief justice assigns an opinion — but if Scalia was the deciding fifth vote in a case that has already been heard, that result is negated. "Unless a justice is sitting at the court at the time of argument and at the time the decision is issued, the justice's vote doesn't count," Bagenstos said

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-happens-big-supreme-court-cases-after-scalia-s-death-n518476

It sure sounds to me like most of the cases before this court will be 4-4.

[randys1]

1. Workers may now be protected and Women in Texas and elsewhere. What people here need to

understand is the very idea that we would do anything that could result in a con nominating SC justices in the future, is downright insane

[BlueStreak]

2. And if Thomas were to have a freakishly tragic encounter with a bus ...

We're talking 4-3.

Let the gods be with us.

[Squinch]

3. Great information. Thank you.

[HooptieWagon]

4. The title and article don't agree.

Obviously a case that has been argued and decided should stand, even if a Justice dies after the vote and the written opinion is reassigned.
Obviously if a Justice dies between hearing the argument and voting, his vote doesn't count. Likewise, a Justice shouldnt vote on a case he hadn't heard the argument on.
IDK what happens in a 4-4 Court. If a 4-4 'decision' is reached, does the lower courts decision stand? Or perhaps the Court postpones hearing cases likely to end up 4-4, as it would be a waste of time?

[napi21]

5. Where did you find the first sentence of your post? I rechecked that article 3 times

and can't find it. It make sense to me that the cases where Scalia was the deciding vote should be decided with the remaining judges only. I think the section that says "Likewise, a Justice shouldn't vote on a case he hadn't heard the argument on" pertains to a potential justice who is to fill the vacancy.

[HooptieWagon]

6. The title asks what happens to cases already decided.

Well, if they were decided then the cases have already been argued and voted. There may be opinion papers to write, but they have no bearing on the decision already made.

The article itself discusses the situation of a vacancy occurring BETWEEN the arguments and the decision, which is a different situation. As I opined above, a Justice who dies after argument and before decision shouldn't have his vote count. And an incoming Justice not present for argument shouldn't vote on the decision.