Supreme Court Watch: Welcome to 2025 Edition

TikTok briefing continues but the Court overall taking advantage of the holiday. Still, there is some court stuff to discuss. It is 1/3 of the government after all.

Jimmy Carter

President Carter was the only full-term president who did not appoint a Supreme Court justice. He still put his stamp on the federal courts:

In addition to the 41 women judges Carter named to the federal judiciary, he appointed a record 57 people of color to the bench, including those who would become prominent federal appellate judges such as Leon Higginbotham, on the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit; Amalya Kearse, on the New York-based 2nd Circuit; and Damon Keith on the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit.

President Biden, correctly, was proud of his judicial picks. He followed in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter. 

The Supreme Court also declared:

In recognition of the President’s announcement of a National Day of Mourning for James Earl Carter, Jr., the Chief Justice has ordered that the Supreme Court building will be closed on Thursday, January 9, 2025. 

President Biden also declared the same for executive departments. Retired Justice Breyer was originally appointed to the Court of Appeals by President Carter. 

Amanda Tyler has a nice essay focused on his views on religious liberty with a Baptist touch. 

TikTok/Trump

A miscellaneous order was dropped on New Year's Eve granting the petitioners divided argument time in the TikTok cases. The various sides are keeping busy during the holidays to be ready for 1/10.  

There are two cases involved here. The order means that each party will have a chance to have their say.  The two cases involve TikTok itself and a group of people who use and benefit from the platform. 

Federal legislation bans TikTok in the United States on January 19 (interesting date) unless they are separated from China. The president can delay this but President Biden has not. The Supreme Court, especially given the nature of the law, sped along an appeal and will have oral arguments in early January.  

Chris Geider and Steve Vladeck are two people who have reported and analyzed the legal developments. Also, as usual, Amy Howe is a person I go to for a basic summary of events with less personal opinion.

One notable development is a brief from the president-elect, which Vladeck in particular finds problematic. One thing that bothers Vladeck, other than the legal arguments, is the "puffery" (Geidner):

President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government.

The author of the brief is the presumptive solicitor general. A few things. (1) Yuck. (2) President Biden is the current president. His "electoral mandate" was more sizable than yours. (3) Vomit.

I'm embarrassed and disgusted these assholes are going to be running the federal government. Professor Vladeck shows how it is not just distasteful but bad lawyering. They are bullshit artists. We know this.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court upheld E.J. Carroll's judgment that held the President-Elect sexually assaulted and defamed her. 

Chief Justice End of the Year Report

"Trump re-elected. Mission accomplished." No, that wasn't the theme. Would have been truthful.

Chief Justice Burger started the release of end-of-the-year reports. Each Chief Justice had their own style. Roberts has a specific theme, tossing in some historical vignette, and then ends with a few pages summarizing the case data for the year. 

The 2024 report begins with King George III threatening judicial independence. We then have a paeon to an independent judiciary. Criticism is acceptable but a few things are not:

(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

There is a tired feel to this standard line, including this statement of what "intimidation" entails:

Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations. 

Is this a subtweet to people like Senator Whitehouse, who has provided evidence? Sometimes, bias is wrongly alleged. Other times, it is well-founded. The lack of a binding ethics code is still a problem. 

The reference to bots and such is concerning though too thin to fully judge the problem. And where is the modern-day evidence of defiance? 

Chris Geidner has more, including an apparent reference to Judge Aileen Cannon being treated unfairly. Allegedly. He argues the report is a bit chilling. I found it more tiresome on the first read.  But he makes some good points on why it's more.  

The last pages of data do not seem too noteworthy. Others can analyze the data. The conservative Supreme Court helped Trump win. They well deserve a lot of criticism. Do it accurately and peacefully. 

Some people will note that we want an independent judiciary in the times of Trump. It will often arise in lower courts, which have binding ethics codes. Judicial independence fits in a wider system of checks and balances. Roberts provides a slanted version.  

Odds and Ends

The Supreme Court has recently sped along the preliminary bound copies of its opinions. The process has already begun for this term. There were a few opinions left from last term. Checking, it is done now.

Note how each opinion has a volume and page number. The process is not done for 2023 orders.

Justice Breyer (retired) will hear some lower court cases next year. O'Connor and Souter (last in 2020) also did that. Tom Clark did so back in the day.

The new (completely Republican) Congress begins at noon on January 3. Senator Bob Casey, who lost re-election, presided over a pro forma session on the 30th. We will also have someone replacing Vance. 

So, Ohio will have two new senators.