SCOTUS Watch

Trump v. U.S.

Jack Smith didn't roll over and die after the Supreme Court handed down its perverse immunity ruling. It also didn't by its lonesome end the prosecution.

The opinion handcuffed prosecutors in multiple ways regarding "official acts." Jack Smith, with a new grand jury, brought a superseding indictment to try to avoid any possible landmines. The basic charges are the same. The details are somewhat different. 

The assumption was that there would be a hearing in front of the district judge to determine what could be used. Jack Smith preemptively acted. We will see how it goes, including the likely appeal.  

The November elections will be the big test to determine if the prosecution continues.  

Student Loans

After the Supreme Court struck down one approach, President Biden used another to put in place another student loan forgiveness plan. States sued again.

The Eighth Circuit recently blocked the plan as litigation is pending. The Biden Administration asked SCOTUS to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court, noting it "expects that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch," refused. 

(Some are confused. The Supreme Court is not making a final decision that Biden's policy broke the law. They did, without open dissent, let the policy be held up in this litigation as the lawsuit goes on.)  

Alaska and other states in a separate lawsuit arising in a different circuit also asked the Supreme Court to vacate a stay. The Tenth Circuit did not block the program. This set of states also asked the Court to vacate a stay, but going the other way.

Once the Eighth Circuit decided, the 10th Circuit also held up the plan. So, there is a conflict between the circuits, but for now one unity. 

Given that, the Supreme Court said no relief was necessary. Chris Geidner explains this involved some hypocrisy -- the first court put in a "universal injunction," which goes beyond the specific litigation. Gorsuch and other conservatives, when it is convenient, find this troubling. Not here. 

Amy Howe also discusses the two orders. Steve Vladeck noted on Twitter how busy the Supreme Court has been dealing with emergency/shadow docket requests.  They have reached 100 decisions (full Court) for this term.

Justice Jackson Book 

Five of the last six (not Kagan) justices appointed to the Supreme Court have had book deals. The last three have pending books though I'm not sure how many people are interested in a book by Kavanaugh. 

(Thomas wrote an autobiography and Breyer has written multiple books. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens wrote multiple books too. I would be interested in hearing from Souter and Kagan.)  

There has been some concern that the high book advances -- Justice Jackson stands out with a nearly 900K deal -- exceed likely profits. What would be the problem? If there is some sort of undue influence, point it out, and use recusal rules to address it.  

This is the concern with Thomas and Alito making trips with billionaires and the like as well as a lack of proper disclosure. It is not suggested that Jackson has not disclosed properly. Sotomayor was charged with unethically using court personnel to promote books.  

I think the justices as a whole have written some interesting books. I am not personally interested in reading them all, including a book on legal writing co-written by Scalia. Jackson has given an interview related to her latest book, following in the footsteps of Gorsuch, who also has a new book out.

Some people do not like justices being "celebrities," but engaging with the public is probably a net good. It does underline the concern about providing more openness, including access to the interviews, and most importantly, court proceedings.  

A few justices in the past also engaged with the public though not to this degree. I think it is generally a product of the times in which there are more media engagements overall. Judges chosen partially for their life stories, including Justice Jackson, also will be more subjects of interest.   

The justices receive a set salary and there are some limits on what they can receive otherwise. If Congress wished to add a limit involving book deals, limiting how much they received, it might be appropriate. Perhaps, a First Amendment concern might arise. 

Overall, however, like Fix the Court (see the linked article), I'm not that worried about it.