Orders and Opinion
The Order List brought the usual, a somewhat interesting case involving "testers" (who challenge practices as "test cases" without really having the intent to use the services), and a Gorsuch/Kavanaugh dissent from cert that received some liberal support. But, not from court liberals, though it would have been nice if one dropped a statement saying why.
The dissent involves a somewhat complicated issue involving the use of court-appointed prosecutors, which very well might in some cases be problematic. Prof. Steve Vladeck, who I respect, had a tweet that quoted a portion of the dissent with approval. But, looking at Amy Howe's summary (see above) and the government's brief, it surely looks a tad complicated.
I can understand why no liberal signed on, especially given the separation of powers cases Gorsuch cited. Anyway, one opinion was dropped, with an interesting 6-3 split. The summary argues it is an uncontroversial case (eight cases went to judgment, three justices having two each, each was various uncontroversial). The one quirk was the split allowed Sotomayor to be the lead justice in the majority, which she wrote.
==
Updates
The Supreme Court in recent years provided a notation on the opinion and opinions related to orders pages when they made corrections. They started a new thing sometime during the term where they (maybe years earlier than in the past) started to post a draft form of the bound volumes.
More opinions are now in this format (.pdf files provided). You can click on the opinion links to see if there are any corrections (see the end of the opinion). The opinions relating to orders page is still in the old format though there are no revisions (orders are rarely edited, in part because they are shorter).
==
Is Change Possible? Got To Start Somewhere
Justice Sotomayor likes to stay positive when she does her speeches and public appearances. Knowing her audiences, she grants there are difficulties (being careful to be suitably vague -- I sent her a letter about having translations for Spanish speakers and she said it was a policy issue she could not discuss, though cited a part of the website that has info in different languages), but pushing people to become publicly active for change.
This is a useful approach. We do have a civic responsibility to not only keep informed but act in ways that help change. This all can seem depressingly impossible. We have a tainted packed Court and it looks like we are stuck with it in the long haul.
We have lower court judges, with nationwide effects, applying horrible rulings (which certain writers continuously shove in our faces in a "look what new horror was done!" sort of way that even I get tired of after a while as a tad overblown).
One can go on. Still, long term, things change. The Supreme Court in the 1980s had at least double the number of written full opinions than now. Various changes occurred to change this, including changes in mandatory appeals (limited today to largely certain voting cases).
I know that seems like a long time ago. Still, even into the 2000s, the Court was different than today. A new book on the "shadow docket," for instance, flagged 2017 as a big date. This is not that long ago. The problem is the assumed wall in front of us. But, Democrats controlled Congress before, and can again. And, change does come -- we have same-sex weddings, etc.
One basic part of change is recognizing the problems. So, the author of the book on shadow docket addresses various problems, including rank judge shopping in Texas. Imagine if one conservative judge deciding something would not scare us so much? There are bad judges. But, the system is supposed to protect us from them, including random assignments, appellate reviews, limited effects (not nationwide injunctions in most cases), and so on.
It all seems overwhelming with immediate relief (such as tweaks on ethics rules) of minimal importance. Things look better long term though I grant that at the moment, it doesn't look great at all. Such is why some say "that's nice, Sonia, but maybe retire, so Biden can appoint someone who can replace you. Imagine if DeSantis is in power in 2026 or 2029!"
Since she was nominated less than 14 years ago, this suggests even term limits (18 years is the standard) would not end such talk.
---
Coming Up
We will have a two week break of sorts though they will continue to work behind the scenes. There will be an Order Day on Monday. There might be other orders. A bit interestingly (I don't recall such a future schedule citation) April 14 (also conference) is flagged as the next (possible but likely probable) opinion day.