Happy 4th of July

 

Some thoughts for the holiday. 

Supreme Court Watch: More Orders

I expected a long "clean-up" order list with a bunch of statements and dissents about a variety of cases not taken from the usual suspects. We had less of that this time. Monday's Order List only had a few such things.

(Last year, we had a fifty-three-page final order list. This time it was twenty fewer pages with Sotomayor and Thomas each discussing two cases apiece.)

Today's final scheduled order list before the summer lists was only four pages long, akin to a list after a normal conference. The big news is that they took two cases involving trans athletes. Another case involves regulating where offensive protests can take place. 

The Court did not grant an appeal of a state court opinion protecting the right of minors to have an abortion in some cases without their parents' permission. The challenge raised parental rights claims. 

Alito (with Thomas) wrote a statement that said it provided a bad vehicle for appeal. Nonetheless, not taking the case should not be inferred to agree with the ruling below. The implication is that parental rights claims (at least here) still might have merit. 

Parents of trans children might be an exception. 

Coming Up

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 21; Monday, August 18; and Friday, September 5, 2025. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

There is no scheduled upcoming conference, but it is likely to take place at the end of September. Meanwhile, they are taking a break, though they are still officially able to do business. 

As Steve Vladeck has discussed, before around 1980, the Court truly was in recess, and individual justices had to act in their individual capacities. That is not the case now. They will hand down scheduled orders and can provide others (including for the two executions scheduled this month) as required. 

Trump-related stuff will continue. Stay tuned. 

ETA: The Supreme Court had two order lists, one on Monday and one on Thursday. I was tricked into thinking we were done for the holiday weekend. 

We were not. Another "clarification" of a previous Trump-enabling decision dropped.

Kagan concurred -- she didn't like the first decision but thought the request logically followed from it -- while Sotomayor (with Jackson) dissented. 

The unsigned order references the "provocative" dissent without adequately answering it. 

Happy anti-tyranny day, I guess. 

Trump v. NYC

The MAGA bunch is attacking the winning NYC Democratic candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, as a dangerous commie and some such. They are very concerned about our elections. 

More concerning are official attacks. Election interference is Trump's m.o. He was (rightly) prosecuted for it in New York City. 

Trump then corruptly interfered in an ongoing prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams. Started a criminal investigation, against traditional policy, of another candidate (Andrew Cuomo). Now, he is targeting another Democratic candidate. Consistency.  

President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Advisory Council — a group that includes Rudy Giuliani, cop-turned-actor Bo Dietl and the founder of Bikers for Trump — held its first meeting on Wednesday to discuss the top threats facing the nation.

Trump has flagged him as dangerous and potentially a criminal. He has left open the possibility that Mamdani's naturalized citizenship can be revoked. He is accusing the leading candidate of a major city of being illegitimate.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council is not typically so heavy on politics. It was created in 2003 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and, as stated in the Federal Register, is meant to provide “nonpartisan and organizationally independent strategic advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security on critical matters related to Homeland Security.” 

The article, however, shows how a recent meeting was quite political. The discussion included endorsements (Sliwa) and semi-endorsements (Adams), and attacks on Cuomo and Mamdani. 

Giuliani (disbarred and found liable for defamation and still part of a pending prosecution in Georgia) being part of anything in this context is outrageous. But so it goes.

I apologize for including this photo without a trigger warning, but it does underline where we are today. New York City residents, especially, need to be on guard that our right to govern ourselves will be challenged by a constitutionally unfit convicted felon. 

NYC Democratic Primary Final

The votes are counted, and the next step in ranked choice voting took place. We have a candidate for my city council district. Mamdani won 56% of the vote and is a promising sign of the future for Democrats. Yes, some old timers worry about this upstart. Don't focus on that. People love to be all "Democrats in Disarray."

SCOTUS Watch: Order List (1) and Some Books

Order List 

The normal term is over, but there is a significant amount of stuff left to clear away. Monday is the first of two order days. Most weeks only have at most one. 

The first order list is fairly busy. They granted a few cases, including a major campaign finance case.

[ETA: The next day, the Supreme Court appointed someone to argue the case.] 

Thomas and Sotomayor have statements and dissents in a few cases. Thomas didn't take part in a case without comment. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh would have taken cases without saying why.

(Curiously, the Sotomayor statement regarding the U.S. Sentencing Commission was joined by Barrett, with Jackson -- who had experience there -- not adding any comment.) 

A per curiam yet again rejected a Bivens claim (right to sue for damages, here a prisoner alleged physical abuse). The short opinion, without dissents, cites an earlier case saying there is an alternate route for relief. The liberals dissented there to point out the problem. Congress can address this problem. Ha ha. 

The Court also GVR'ed (grant, vacate, remand) a case, which is fairly common. The notable thing is that they granted a petition for rehearing in the process, something nearly never done. The case has been lingering since last summer. 

More to come on Thursday.  Also, for your scheduling pleasure, here are the three summer order list dates. 

Books

I was looking at a discussion of some fictional accounts of the Supreme Court and checked out two books from the early 1980s. 

Both are easy reading, while not too realistic (or detailed) accounts of the Supreme Court. They have some insider stuff while largely focusing on others tangentially connected to them. 

Margaret Truman (Harry’s daughter) wrote (or had a ghostwriter write) many mysteries, including ones with D.C. locations.

One involved Murder in the Supreme Court. The book doesn’t provide too many Supreme Court insights, tossing in some conspiracy stuff, but it is decent as a mystery. It provides various points of view, including a few justices and law clerks. The action largely focuses on the two people investigating the murder. 

Again, the Supreme Court stuff isn’t too impressive. For instance, why have a justice patterned on William O. Douglas and reference the actual person? The "youngest justice" was Joseph Story. The book takes place in the 1980s. Someone who fought in the Korean War is not too young.  

No More Dreams by William J. Coughlin is also from the early 1980s. Coughlin was an author and United States administrative judge. This book concerns the effort to replace a judge on a 4-4 Court. Tad heavy-handed with one justice supposedly deciding a bunch of life-changing things.

The Supreme Court took many more cases in the early 1980s. Many (most?) of them weren't too significant. The book also includes a rather unlikely law suppressing the freedom of the press (multiple serious articles are not published since the law makes the press liable for the results of the story, including a reduction of the collection of tolls after a story about the bridge being structurally unsound).  

The book largely focuses on a man's job (and various other personal things while he is there to investigate a possible candidate. Since the guy is principled, the ending is not too surprising. 

It is sometimes too detailed, but it is mostly a quick reading three hundred pages. 

Roberts Vents 

Meanwhile, Roberts is fine if you "vent" about bad rulings. He thinks mostly that it is about disagreement with the results, not the unfairness of the process.

OTOH, many argue it very well is about that. 

Strict Scrutiny Podcast

Strict Scrutiny had two "emergency" podcasts to cover the Planned Parenthood and birthright citizenship decisions (and other stuff) last Thursday and Friday. Both were around fifty minutes. I think that should be about the length of regular episodes. The hour-plus episodes sometimes seem too long.  Today's episode follows up, particularly about the LGBTQ+ case. 

You can listen and watch (the YouTube stuff is available a little after the audio). The episodes led me to again wonder why the "fourth Beatle" (Jaime Santos) left the show. 

She brought more appellate lawyer to the show, not being a law professor like the other three hosts. The (short) Wikipedia page does not even mention her. 

Curiously, after I once added a comment about her, it was removed. Did she just leave because she was too busy or felt it wasn't for her? 

I don't remember them making a reference to her leaving. Also, when she was an advocate in a case, the reference to her on the show sounded uncomfortable. I think it wasn't exactly a smooth break. 

It's all somewhat weird. 

Trump Defends Religion Again

A libertarian on a conservative-leaning blog flags the Trump Administration targeting some Iran Christian refugees. I wrote about the limited freedom of Christianity in Iran. Two key problems: Islam-Christian converts and people in sects not deemed "Christian."

Follow the Stars Home

I have watched this Hallmark Hall of Fame film multiple times. 

These films are not like the usual current Hallmark fare. They are more often serious and not merely focused on romance. They were on CBS on Sundays before we had a Hallmark Channel. (Or three) They are now most likely to be found on Hallmark Family.  

The film has many familiar faces, including Blair Brown as the mom who is a librarian. Alexa Vega (many know her from Spy Kids)  is all grown up now and pops up in some Hallmark films as a lead. 

"That girl" (that is, someone you know from somewhere else) includes a young mom who decides to keep her baby even after she finds out that she will be disabled. Her husband cannot handle it and abandons them. 

Skip ahead six years, and she's dealing with a girl with special needs, helped by his brother (a doctor) who clearly loves her. Alex Vega, whose mom is an alcoholic and has an abusive boyfriend, comes in as a "mother's helper."  Vega has needs of her own, as a reference to her social worker shows. 

The whole thing is a flashback of sorts, starting with a car accident. It is based on a book.  Not a short one. As usual, they change a few things, including from looking at Amazon, a good change.  No, I never read the book, which is somewhat strange, since I first watched this thing a long time ago. 

The film has many moving parts, all of which are generally well done. There are some good scenes between the mother and her mother. The problems of caring for a special needs child while still being blessed. The girl struggles with her own mother while also showing her value, including being a friend to the disabled daughter (who seems to be played by two non-disabled child actors*). And, the husband who is unable to handle the responsibility of a disabled child.

It is a lot. For instance, the mother (Dianne) of the disabled child becomes something of a second mother for Alexa Vega's character. This is a difficult situation. Once, Dianne's mother suggested she take Vega for a special trip that they often took as mom/daughter. Dianne notes, "She isn't my daughter."  

There are various little moments. For instance, Blair Brown's character is retiring partially to help care for her granddaughter. She will miss being a librarian. We see her tear up on her last day.  

The husband obviously does not come off very well. There is little to defend, except to somewhat understand, his abandoning his family. There is some realism there. His argument that she should abort and telling his brother that he too would want her to is also realistic. Many people will feel that way.

The result helps his argument to some extent. The girl does suffer. She has a condition that limits her mentally and physically. She is too young to understand, including understanding the physical pain it entails. Morally, it is a serious question if it is right to put her through that by not aborting.  

People will argue her life is still worth living. The point is generally moot once the mother decides to have the child. The child is surely alive, then, and people have an obligation to her needs. The mother was informed about the risks. Once she made her decision, it was correct for her brother-in-law to respect it and help her in whatever way he could.  

Some parents and family members do not want to deal with people in their family who have problems. They would rather ignore them if possible. 

That's a problem. This includes if someone still wants to stay but does not pay attention to that person. So, the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but ignores the needs of his child. 

I think the film is well-acted and written. Not surprising since I watched it so many times. 

It also might be deemed "pro-life," but that doesn't make it anti-choice. Her ability to make a choice made the result that much more significant. Yes, the only person who puts forth the other option is coded as horrible. A more appealing relative also voicing doubts would have been nice.  

(The Amazon summary says they found out "weeks before" the birth. In the film, it was early enough for her to have an abortion.) 

I can carp about some part or another, but the film is rather remarkable for all it does. Okay. A few times, the soundtrack is annoying. And, the mom has one of those special jobs (she seems to build dollhouses or something) that allows her not to struggle for money while having a comfortable existence. 

Overall, it's well recommended. 

ETA: I also watched Remembering Sunday, another Hallmark Hall of Fame film. The guy has the "Momento" disease, where he wakes up each day forgetting everything since his brain went screwy. 

He does have long-term memory, so he remembers his best friend and sister. Zachary Levi plays the guy who manages (for a time) to have a job, though he doesn't tell his boss about his condition. 

Alexis Bleisdel (Rory Gilmore) is a waitress waiting for an inheritance (how convenient!) and falls in love with him. She only finds out about his condition near the end. He did try to tell her about it, if not right away. Overall, an interesting movie with a twist. 

No totally happy ending. 

==

* The two actresses do a good job in a role that is not easy. They need to realistically portray a child with Spina Bifida and Rett Syndrome.