SCOTUS Watch

Miscellaneous Order

Amy Howe (whose personal website disappeared without her commenting on it) explains the appointment of an advocate to argue a case in which the government is no longer defending the relevant issue. They have done this more often this term. 

Summary

The justices came back from their mid-winter hiatus. They dropped opinions and held a conference. They will return for oral arguments next week. There will be orders on Monday and opinion day on Tuesday.

Joan Biskupic wrote an article entitled "The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. He’s using it as a blank check." Trump is bragging about being a king. 

Opinions

There were three opinions by Kavanaugh (with Roberts + liberals), Kagan (unanimous with concurrences), and Sotomayor (unanimous).  

The first opinion was a limited win for unemployed workers. Chris Geidner on Bluesky* summarized: 

In a 5-4 win for unemployed workers, the Supreme Court allows their lawsuit to proceed alleging that Alabama is illegally delaying their benefits.

The longer SCOTUSblog live blog summary:

The court holds that when a state court's application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively gives state officials immunity from federal civil rights claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts cannot deny those claims on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust them. 

The regulation of state courts raises federalism concerns that suggest why it split the justices. Thomas went further than the other three in support of overruling precedents to advance his cause. 

Kagan obtained a unanimous court in the next case by narrowing the issues. A few justices raised concerns about wider issues. It's a technical issue with some wider importance to the average American:

This is a case about a program that establishes subsidies for the internet and telecom services for schools and libraries across the country. The funds are payable upon receipt of a reimbursement request. The question is whether such a request counts as a "claim" under the False Claims Act. The court holds that the reimbursement requests do satisfy that requirement because the government provided at least a "portion" of the money applied for.

(Again, SCOTUSblog live blog summary.) 

The third lawsuit involved Holocaust survivors and their heirs bringing a lawsuit in U.S. courts against Hungary for illegally seized property during WWII. There is a federal law that blocks such lawsuits with exceptions. The court says there is no window here regarding the specific argument made. 

As usual, it's nice that the opinions are readily available, along with online discussion, but audio/video would be better. We are also told ahead of time that there is an opinion day but not what would be handed down. I'm generally okay with that.  

Trump Suit

The first Trump matter reached the court involving his attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. Steve Vladeck argues this dispute has a limited reach. They basically decided to wait and see.

A lower court restraining order was "held in abeyance" for a few days. Sotomayor and Jackson wouldn't even grant that. Gorsuch and Alito thought that was too much that other way and would have reached out and lifted the restraining order.  

Vladeck calls this a "punt." To be continued.

==

* Some people act surprised when one or more conservatives hand down a reasonable order. 

Justices aren't perfect little devils who always rule badly. To be sure, they did earn some lack of the benefit of the doubt.