The Supreme Court had twenty-four opinions left. It now has twenty. Several important cases remain and one additional day (Thursday) so far was added to deal with them all. (Toss in next Monday as a scheduled day.) This back-loading is bad policy as is not providing even audio or transcripts of order/opinion days. We are left to wait some months for Oyez.com to release them and rely on media reports.
First the orders. Basically eight pages of nothing. A Masterpiece Cakeshop related case regarding the wedding cases was sent back to apply that precedent. SCOTUS dealing with the breadth of the ruling post-Kennedy will wait for another day. Among the mix of cases not taken was one regarding the NY ban on "gravity knives," which has been recently reversed. The challenge was not on Second Amendment grounds, but vagueness, regarding how one determines if a knife is covered. Various big issues pending. Later in the day, an order was dropped to dispose of a case related to the racial gerrymandering matter.
Opinions. Some interesting line-ups today but we started with a standard 5-4 one in which the Supreme Court ruled that a private nonprofit corporation that runs a public-access TV channel is not a state actor and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment. The channel airs among other things Gay USA, which I have watched for some time now, if mostly on different venues. Don't know how important the matter is really but inclined to agree with Sotomayor's dissent.
After one tainted Trump judge (sic) handed down an opinion in a low stress case, it was time for the other. Gorsuch (with Kavanaugh and Thomas in full; the women justices in result) upheld the power of a state uranium prohibition. RBG thought he shouldn't have dwelt as much on questions of motive (though this was a major issue during oral argument) and provided a sort of alternative majority opinion. Roberts (with Alito and Breyer -- who had a bad day, only joining the majority in one case) argued the majority was confused. Net effect doesn't appear to be much.
[ETA: The case is also a close one because it is actually about both the state and federal government relying on a felon gun possession charge, if each to protect their own interests. This wasn't like someone shooting a mailman, let's say, and one is a state assault charge, the other protecting the mails. Again, it is unclear how much would really change if this opinion went the other way. This helps both sides' position in a fashion.]
Justice Thomas seemed to lean the other way but said he determined history does not warrant that. He did toss a gratuitous comment suggesting RBG was relying on her personal judgment of justice, not a reasonable alternative interpretation of all the evidence. Gorsuch lays it on thick, including about governments over and over trying to convict until they can win. This wasn't such a case. A state prosecuted a felony gun possession and the federal govenrment (once) felt the punishment obtained was not enough to advance its own federal interests. Something of a close case but one can see it being easier some other time. Advancing democratically passed public policy is one way to promote "individual liberty" too. This isn't just about federalism.
(Some liberals were concerned an opposite result would harm attempts to have a state backstop to address Trump and his crew in part if Trump pardoned Manafort or the like. Before now, said liberals might find RBG's position copacetic. It seems fairly unclear how much a ruling the other way will have affected things. For instance, even if pardons come, there probably will still be state crimes that don't overlap to prosecute. These people committed enough crimes to go a long way there.)
RBG had no dissenting jabot on today, one sign it was going to be an okay day. In fact, she had the fourth and final case, the liberals (except for Breyer) and Thomas and Gorsuch providing a curious 5-4 majority to punt in the Virginia racial gerrymandering case on standing grounds. The net result helps the Democrats in a key election cycle later this year. Alito's dissent might be convincing and one can see why Breyer would agree with him even if they split on the merits. Why the other conservatives split is unclear and might have to wait for when the other gerrymander cases come down. Might be a bad sign but who knows.
ETA: I read the opinion and it has two parts. The first part reasonably notes that Virginia is not a state that allows one party of a legislative body to represent the state's interests in court. The second argues that it also does not have standing for constitutional purposes merely because a redistricting might change the membership with resulting policy changes. Something like changing the size of the body might be different.
The dissent reasonably challenges this though perhaps there are not precedents clearly on point. Also, there is an idea that the justices wanted a way to avoid dealing with the merits and Breyer could dissent since there was enough to do so (of mixed ideology too!) without him. Given his pragmatic tendencies, he might act differently if he was the fifth vote or something.
First the orders. Basically eight pages of nothing. A Masterpiece Cakeshop related case regarding the wedding cases was sent back to apply that precedent. SCOTUS dealing with the breadth of the ruling post-Kennedy will wait for another day. Among the mix of cases not taken was one regarding the NY ban on "gravity knives," which has been recently reversed. The challenge was not on Second Amendment grounds, but vagueness, regarding how one determines if a knife is covered. Various big issues pending. Later in the day, an order was dropped to dispose of a case related to the racial gerrymandering matter.
Opinions. Some interesting line-ups today but we started with a standard 5-4 one in which the Supreme Court ruled that a private nonprofit corporation that runs a public-access TV channel is not a state actor and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment. The channel airs among other things Gay USA, which I have watched for some time now, if mostly on different venues. Don't know how important the matter is really but inclined to agree with Sotomayor's dissent.
After one tainted Trump judge (sic) handed down an opinion in a low stress case, it was time for the other. Gorsuch (with Kavanaugh and Thomas in full; the women justices in result) upheld the power of a state uranium prohibition. RBG thought he shouldn't have dwelt as much on questions of motive (though this was a major issue during oral argument) and provided a sort of alternative majority opinion. Roberts (with Alito and Breyer -- who had a bad day, only joining the majority in one case) argued the majority was confused. Net effect doesn't appear to be much.
"[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."Justice Alito has a lot of cases left, but don't really mind him having the one upholding the rule that an "offence" for double jeopardy purposes can be the same action if two different sovereigns (state/federal) are involved. Puerto Rico per an earlier case is not a different sovereign (Breyer/Sotomayor disagreed). I'm sympathetic with RBG (Gorsuch agreed, more pretentiously) arguing the the old rule is unjustified. But, stare decisis as well as really the limited reach in practice (which can work both ways; e.g., a violation of civil rights and an assault might be two separate crimes) does suggest overturning the rule on constitutional grounds is dubious. Starting on a clean slate, I might think otherwise. But, I can see arguments both ways.
[ETA: The case is also a close one because it is actually about both the state and federal government relying on a felon gun possession charge, if each to protect their own interests. This wasn't like someone shooting a mailman, let's say, and one is a state assault charge, the other protecting the mails. Again, it is unclear how much would really change if this opinion went the other way. This helps both sides' position in a fashion.]
Justice Thomas seemed to lean the other way but said he determined history does not warrant that. He did toss a gratuitous comment suggesting RBG was relying on her personal judgment of justice, not a reasonable alternative interpretation of all the evidence. Gorsuch lays it on thick, including about governments over and over trying to convict until they can win. This wasn't such a case. A state prosecuted a felony gun possession and the federal govenrment (once) felt the punishment obtained was not enough to advance its own federal interests. Something of a close case but one can see it being easier some other time. Advancing democratically passed public policy is one way to promote "individual liberty" too. This isn't just about federalism.
(Some liberals were concerned an opposite result would harm attempts to have a state backstop to address Trump and his crew in part if Trump pardoned Manafort or the like. Before now, said liberals might find RBG's position copacetic. It seems fairly unclear how much a ruling the other way will have affected things. For instance, even if pardons come, there probably will still be state crimes that don't overlap to prosecute. These people committed enough crimes to go a long way there.)
RBG had no dissenting jabot on today, one sign it was going to be an okay day. In fact, she had the fourth and final case, the liberals (except for Breyer) and Thomas and Gorsuch providing a curious 5-4 majority to punt in the Virginia racial gerrymandering case on standing grounds. The net result helps the Democrats in a key election cycle later this year. Alito's dissent might be convincing and one can see why Breyer would agree with him even if they split on the merits. Why the other conservatives split is unclear and might have to wait for when the other gerrymander cases come down. Might be a bad sign but who knows.
ETA: I read the opinion and it has two parts. The first part reasonably notes that Virginia is not a state that allows one party of a legislative body to represent the state's interests in court. The second argues that it also does not have standing for constitutional purposes merely because a redistricting might change the membership with resulting policy changes. Something like changing the size of the body might be different.
The dissent reasonably challenges this though perhaps there are not precedents clearly on point. Also, there is an idea that the justices wanted a way to avoid dealing with the merits and Breyer could dissent since there was enough to do so (of mixed ideology too!) without him. Given his pragmatic tendencies, he might act differently if he was the fifth vote or something.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!