SCOTUS Watch: More Opinions

Opinions

Tuesday's opinion was a 7-2 ruling written by Barrett with Jackson (with Sotomayor) dissenting. It concerned a technical issue involving Medicaid:

In calculating the Medicare fraction, an individual is “entitled to [SSI] benefits” for purposes of the Medicare fraction when she is eligible to receive an SSI cash payment during the month of her hospitalization.

Jackson flags, "Providing quality healthcare to low-income patients can be costly."  In her dissent, Jackson criticizes the majority's reading, continuing her willingness to go her own way regarding what federal legislation means:

The decision the majority has made in this case will deprive hospitals serving the neediest among us of critical federal funds that Congress plainly attempted to provide.

I leave it to others to determine who is right. The bottom line is the importance of Supreme Court opinions and how it matters who is chosen to interpret them. 

Wednesday's opinion had an interesting line-up:

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Narrow issue:

A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” as described in §101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.

Four justices, two from each side, disagreed. The dissent also argues that if they send the case back, the petitioner might still get the pay. The government argues the argument is waived. But that lowers the stakes some.  

The Supreme Court spends much of its time deciding mundane matters. Sometimes, they do have significant importance in specific fields. Other times, they narrowly address matters. We see that in these two cases. Also, Jackson dissented twice, joined by different liberals. 

Why they felt it necessary to have two separate opinion days to announce two opinions, opinions not particularly "hot button," I will leave to others to decide. 

Attacks on Judges 

Justices giving talks while serving their role as overseers of circuits provide some interesting fodder. 

Justice Jackson travelled to Puerto Rico (an imperfect fit in a circuit otherwise covering New England) and addressed judges of the First Circuit.

“A society in which judges are routinely made to fear for their own safety or their own livelihood due to their decisions is one that has substantially departed from the norms of behavior that govern a democratic system,” said Justice Jackson, during her participation as keynote speaker at the First Circuit Judicial Conference. “Attacks on judicial independence is how countries that are not free, not fair, and not rule of law oriented operate.”

The attacks these days tend to be from one direction, with the lead troll being Donald Trump. Cases from all sides, including someone convicted of endangering Justice Kavanaugh, can be cited. It's a serious concern that led to more federal protections in recent years:

Threats of physical violence against judges have also been on the rise, with judges facing bomb threats and a rash of delivery of anonymously dispatched pizzas, a prank apparently designed to send a message that their home addresses can be found.

The title of the speech is “Preserving Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law.” She thought it important enough to post on the SCOTUS website. The last speech posted is from 2023. No kewpie doll if you guess who gave that one.   

One more thing. Judicial independence is fine, and it's wrong to put judges at risk. Judicial independence is not wrongly threatened by mere criticism or by correctly regulating them (ethics reform), as Jackson herself acknowledged (as to the second) in the past.  

She also references "baseless attacks on your intelligence and integrity." I saw someone, for instance, do the asinine troll of "she doesn't know what a woman is."* OTOH, some attacks are not baseless. A judge can lack integrity or common sense.

Coming Up

There will be Orders on Monday. 

Then, the next scheduled day of activity is the 15th, which is both a conference day and one more oral argument. And, maybe (probably) one or more opinions. So, it will be somewhat of a notable day.

We can (and probably will) have some sort of order and/or other SCOTUS developments before then. Meanwhile, they are working on opinions and stuff. 

==

* "Sex" is defined differently depending on the jurisdiction. It also has various complexities as a matter of sociology and science. 

That is the context that a judge would need to know about when determining "who is a woman." A state might define it by chromosome, appearance, or personal self-determination. Oh so simple, huh?