SCOTUS Watch

Maine Legislator

A Maine legislator was censured for doxxing a trans teen and required to apologize for the means she used. (Read the censure.) She refused.

The legislature then blocked her from voting while leaving open (read the legislature's reply for details) various other legislative activities, including committee work and proposing (and testifying on) legislation.

She brought a federal claim, but legislative immunity led to her being blocked in the lower courts. Justice Jackson decided it was not appropriate to step in. Appropriately. 

The Court itself (Sotomayor dissenting without opinion) did grant her an injunction. Various people found this an obvious thing. I continue to dissent. 

Was it a grave threat to voting rights for the U.S. Congress to strip Rep. Taylor Greene of her committee seats? How far should the courts get involved in legislative decision-making here? Legislators must follow the rules of the body. A "republican form of government" (appealed to by the other side) includes a legislature controlling its members.  

I think at some point, the penalty is counterproductive. She comes off as a martyr. But it shouldn't be a federal issue. I'm not too upset at the result. Still, I can see problems with second-guessing. 

Jackson's dissent overall is sensible.  

Opinions 

The one written opinion was a unanimous one by Barrett. 

A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.

The case involved contracts being awarded with the proviso that "a disadvantaged business enterprise" be used. The awardees lied about how they were used. 

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor (making a Mets/Yankees tickets analogy) separately debated particulars. 

The big news was a non-decision. Barrett recused herself (without saying why*) in a major charter school case. The result was an evenly divided Court. 

The lower court opinion (Oklahoma Supreme Court) was upheld (protecting the separation of church and state) without it being a precedent for the future. 

Roberts likely joined the liberals. Kavanaugh, during oral argument, clearly voiced support for the charter school. Alito and Thomas are obvious. Gorsuch on religious issues also generally goes along with them. 

The conservatives will now seek a case where Barrett can take part and hope she goes along (good shot).

Trump Enabling Watch

The justices, in a thinly argued order, allowed Trump to remove people from independent agencies for now, with a "don't worry about the Fed" bit tossed in. 

As the order begins noting, Congress passed a law saying people can only be removed for cause. Trump does not have the authority to override that.

Neither history nor text shows that "executive power" (the power to carry out things) provides a constitutional override. 

Kagan, this being her bailiwick, had a strong dissent against this shadow docket extension of bullshit executive power precedent of the Roberts Court, attacking an over 90 years old rule.  

Meanwhile ...

Roberts granted an administrative stay (temporary) in favor of DOGE, holding up a lower court ruling granting a challenger the right to obtain some discovery to determine if it is legitimately performing its duties. We will see how long this lasts. 

Other

The Supreme Court denied without comment a request for a stay in a criminal case. A quick perusal suggests that the matter is not particularly compelling. 

Upcoming

Order List on Tuesday (Monday is a holiday), and another non-argument session and conference next Thursday. It might also be an opinion day. 

==

* Amy Howe summarizes:

Barrett did not state why she did not participate in the case. But the charter school was represented at the Supreme Court by the religious liberty clinic at Notre Dame’s law school, where Barrett taught for 15 years before becoming a federal judge and later a justice. And Nicole Stelle Garnett, who is a law professor at Notre Dame and a leading advocate for allowing the use of public funds at religious schools, is a close friend of Barrett’s. Barrett is godmother to one of Garnett’s children.

Justice Jackson recused from a Harvard affirmative action case because of a past relationship to the school without the additional personal connection.