SCOTUS Watch

Opinion

The one opinion handed down was not too exciting: 

Cunningham v. Cornell University will not go into the history books as one of the most important 30 decisions of the 2024-25 term. The case involves a technical problem about pleading standards under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the court’s resolution of the problem was, in a word, technical. 

The justices needed to resolve this case because lower courts had offered differing solutions to the conundrum, and pleading standards for ERISA should be the same nationwide. I doubt it will have broad significance in the future, but it will offer a useful roadmap for trial courts having to deal with these cases on the ground. 

I suspect that is the reason the case was assigned to Sotomayor, a former trial judge.

Alito (with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) concurred while being worried that the approach would lead to difficulties. Trivia alert: his opinion includes an URL though the relevant page has not been updated. 

Orders 

The housekeeping order set forth oral argument time for the new Solicitor General. 

Another order announced a mid-May oral argument to address a request to stop national injunctions to block Trump's blatantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship policy. Steve Vladeck noted on Bluesky that this will be just the fourth oral argument on emergency applications since 1971.

They assume it will be heavily attended since they have a special sitting announcement. 

Garcia Case

A strongly conservative appellate judge provided the passion that should have been shown on the Supreme Court level. Supporting the judge:

While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

The stakes:

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. 

The duty of the Executive:

We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. 

Abrego Garcia is a symbol of a wider problem, including someone else (from my neck of the woods) who appears to have been wrongly seized. The government (at first) admitted they made a mistake in the Garcia case. Now they are backtracking and arguing he really is guilty. No backsies. 

Nonetheless, quite a few sketchy examples can be provided, including the gay hairdresser. Basic due process before disappearing people into a foreign hellhole is the very least we should offer.

(Citizens have begun to be caught in the vortex.) 

Maybe, we can demand more from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Trump is making the Supreme Court look weak. 

Coming Up

After the holiday, we will have two more weeks of oral argument and an Order List on Monday. Tuesday has also been designated as another Opinion Day. 

ETA: We live in interesting times. Take that as you will. Chris Geidner reports that a little before 1 A.M. on Saturday (there was a 2 A.M. dissent a few years back in a death penalty case), another order dropped. 

Thomas and Alito dissents. Alito made the announcement a statement would follow. Jackson once wrote a dissent in a death penalty case the day after the execution. These are special situations. 

The "Government" (ultimately our representatives), for now, are not to remove any of a "putative" class of detainees that are challenging the application of the Alien Enemies Act. Which has no legitimate application in the current situation (my comment.)

They refer to this provision:

The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

This is again a signal, not as firm as I would like, about what is going on and what courts should do about it. The reference to an open-ended judicial power is notable in itself. The order only applies to a group challenging in Texas, but there is no reason other lower court judges should not follow. "All courts." 

This is an Administration, as Geidner notes, who already sent planes of detainees (including in the face of a judicial order to stop) who have no right to be deported using this method. Geidner provides details of this specific order, which suggests a major red flag.

An unsigned order requires a majority of the justices to participate. There is a six-person quorum. So, it's possible someone else dissented privately. In my view, that is pointless, especially when two openly dissent. 

... Alito's dissent eventually dropped sometime Saturday night. The gist is that the Court acted prematurely and dubiously on a procedural level. Alito is selective about such things. He ends with a comment about the executive and judiciary both having an obligation to follow the law.  

Not quite worth the wait.