SCOTUS Watch: First Bunch of June Opinions

The Supreme Court had around thirty opinions remaining this week (they were about halfway through with a month left, an unnecessary backloading). 

They handled six with limited dissent. As usual, should have livestreamed the (relatively boring this time) opinion announcements. 

Liberal Strategy?

The three liberals somewhat ironically had "conservativish" opinion results in cases involving discrimination, gun litigation, and religious exemptions. The results were not really surprising. The unanimity might have been somewhat.

Multiple liberals argued that the liberals were able to limit the damage. Also, the unanimity is far from "obvious," given that some courts had alternative viewpoints. It is also a matter of docket selection. 

Liz Sepper, an expert in establishment law, strongly disagreed that Sotomayor's opinion helped much. Sepper is very worried about its possible reach. She did think Jackson tried to cabin it. 

There is a continuing dispute about the value of liberals compromising. Just what are they getting in return? How that applies here is unclear. 

Overall, Roberts used his assignment power quite well here. We will see long-term if it has changed much. 

Mexican Gun Dispute

Michael Dorf was sympathetic about the lawsuit by Mexico involving illegal guns that arose from the United States. He is not a fan of the congressional statute that limits gun lawsuits. 

Nonetheless, as Kagan (and Jackson in a separate opinion) explain, with the law in place, their legal argument was a stretch. Jackson uses her concurrence to reaffirm her "we should follow legislative text and function" message. Thomas briefly concurs, too. 

Discrimination Lawsuits

Jackson, via a short opinion, dealt with a lower court that put a questionable limit on discrimination lawsuits. The court of appeals questioned a claim by a heterosexual woman that she was being targeted for her sexual orientation. 

The appellate court was not alone in applying its rule. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Still, bottom line, the opinion can be interpreted to have a general anti-discriminatory message. 

Thomas with Gorsuch aimed for a bigger game. He also challenged "atextual legal rules and frameworks," which is a tad hypocritical coming from him. Both regularly apply text with certain quite debatable background assumptions. 

Some people flagged the opinion cited Bostock ("sex" includes sex orientation regarding a federal statute). The conservatives didn't say anything in reply! I think they might have read too much into two mundane-looking citations. 

Religious Exemptions 

Sotomayor handled a dispute involving an exemption to unemployment taxes for a Catholic charity. She explained the classification was a violation of both aspects of religious liberty (for the liberals, the Establishment Clause is still a thing). 

Some worried about the possible reach of the principle. As noted above, some are quite upset at the opinion. Jackson's concurrence argued that a related congressional exemption was narrow in scope. 

[Typo Watch: There is already a correction. Also, there have been online sources cited in opinions this term. The page, however, is blank.]

Other Issues 

Alito dealt with a personal jurisdiction dispute. Thomas handled a case about amending a complaint (involving a lawsuit against Hamas). Jackson partially dissented on that one. Jackson continued to make her opinions known in various separate opinions.

And, as Kimberly Robinson (Bloomberg) noted on her Bluesky account, SCOTUS "rejected Labcorp’s bid to limit who can join a class action that accused it of discriminating against blind people with its self-service check-in kiosks." Kavanaugh dissented from the DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted). SCOTUS coverage foreshadowed that result. 

There will be more opinions next Thursday.

Orders

Peter Mosoko Ikome requested a stay. For some reason, there are no links to the briefing. It was ultimately held to be moot. The case somehow involves a longstanding immigration case. 

Steve Vladeck references some mistaken emails SCOTUS sent about the Order List on Friday. On Thursday, on the website calendar, it referenced the usual Monday scheduling at 9:30 A.M.

It has now decided to post the Order List today. Amy Howe says it was a software glitch. Shrugs. 

(Vladeck's Monday round-up explains that the Public Information Office supplied a statement about the glitch. They, again, didn't put it on their website. This just annoys me.)  

They granted a few cases. Barrett recused without saying why. Alito (with Thomas) dropped a statement saying they think a habeas case was wrongly decided, but since it has no real effect, they are okay with not granting cert. 

These Friday afternoon shenanigans are why these things should not be posted too early. 

Trump Enabling Watch 

In two separate emergency rulings, the conservatives lifted a block on Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) personnel accessing sensitive Social Security systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit.

The two unsigned orders provide thin and thinner reasoning. The liberals would deny the applications. Jackson (with Sotomayor) explained why in one of the cases. More Friday afternoon follies. 

And, guess what? Kilmar Abrego García is coming back. They think they have found something to prove he is really a big, dangerous criminal.  

Try and try again, I guess. 

ETA: I find the low bar expressed here, by the person who put forth a strong 14A, sec. 3 argument that was actively ignored, appalling. How many constitutional wrongs have to take place to warrant concern in your Ivy Tower? All the others still not back need not. We can have a symbolic CYA or two, and it will be okay.