SCOTUS Watch: Opinion Day

One rule is that if Kagan and Roberts is on the same side, it is likely the right side. Like all rules, that might have slipped up in the non-unanimous jury case (though I think a narrower ruling might have been warranted there), but it seems generally true. They also are the best writers on the current Court. Each was on the same side Thursday, each wrote an opinion.

Kagan's case was unanimous with the only dispute being if the old and steady rules of personal jurisdiction should be tweaked in the 21st Century. The High Federalist trio (Alito less so) was at least somewhat open to the idea, Alito making clear at least here, we shouldn't change things. Kagan, not for the last time to be sure, went after Gorsuch/Thomas (etc.) attempts to re-invent the wheel, apparently compelled by text or history or something. Barrett did not take part.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been highlighted much -- someone might have brought it up, I guess -- is that this is the FIRST signed Kagan opinion. Yes, there are multiple per curiams, but still 14 or so signed opinions. Why is this her first opinion? Did she spend time with per curiams? The usual case here is "losing" an opinion, but what would that be? The one improvidentially granted?  Something else?  A bit weird.

Given how pro-Scalia Barrett is, maybe she would have went with Roberts in the second, since it was a logical extension of an old case of his. This time, the other three dissented, bringing up in part the claim that the majority wasn't being neutral. Conservatives are never biased; they just follow the law, and darn if it follows where they often want to go. This is one of those cases where Roberts/Kavanaugh take a "moderate" path though that might be just how far to the right things are being pressed. 

The case involves the Fourth Amendment, and like a case heard this week, such cases result in a lot of fact based analysis and line drawing. The issue here was if being shot at was a "seizure" if the shot didn't actually stop you. Or, as here, your car.  The details make for a good potboiler with the added benefit of one or more (see the one footnote) cases with their own special facts. The cases also tend to be of limited scope and this seems to be the case here.  Then, again, that seems to be the case for Roberts Court decisions as a rule, even if at times, the "minimalism" is misleading.  With some simply big cases tossed in.

The opinion shows off some of Roberts verbal flair, including summarizing the facts. It also shows that the Court will at times have liberal friendly results. Roberts actually was the deciding vote while Kennedy was still around with pressing the privacy of cell phones. Again, this will often be a matter of how far the Court will be pressed. But, yes, the liberals won't always lose. Other times Gorsuch or Barrett (as seen in the minister at the execution case) will fill out a majority.

May was set as expected as the new date for a sentencing case, the change of the Biden Administration's position requiring getting an amicus. It is not clear yet if the justices at least will choose this time (now fully vaccinated) to hear things in person for the first time since last March. Anyway, I'm not sure why the proper result here is just to find a new case to decide the issue. The Administration granted the guy is right. Doesn't this just hold up his merits position for months in a wrongful fashion?

Tomorrow they will have a conference and might drop something else. If so, I will put it below. Recently, a few more urls were added to the online sources cited in opinions page. 

ETA: I edited a paragraph about the Roberts opinion. 

Also, the Supreme Court has announced an Opinion Day on April 1st, again on Thursday.  You can see this on the calendar on the website that now has color shade showing just that.  It is also on the summary for Friday, May 26th.  I'm not sure when they started this, but it was available last term too (at least on their public phone line).  Unlike some courts, they still don't say what they will hand down.  But, baby steps.