SCOTUS Watch: Summer Recess

The shitty trans athletes opinion shows the importance of voluntary trans protections, including those in New York.

The summer recess begins. The justices will have to address some things that pop up. They also have scheduled stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 20; Monday, August 17; and Friday, September 4, 2026. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Fix the Court suggests justices should circuit ride. I think it would be a decent idea if they spent more time in the lower courts. One idea: have each circuit justice preside over en banc hearings. 

The justices (minus two) might not be great at being district court judges. But I'm open to some thoughts.

We can spend the summer thinking about the Supreme Court. People think "court reform" means more justices. Let's think further. It's more than that. 

SCOTUS Watch: Opinions/Orders

Orders

The Order List had some notable content, including multiple grants and no grant in the E.J. Carroll case. Maybe, just maybe, Trump will have to pay up for his sexual assault.

Gorsuch (with Alito and Thomas) returns to his concern about health workers not being able to obtain an exemption from vaccine mandates. NY, among other things, argues it is a bad "vehicle" for review. 

Thomas (with Gorsuch) wants to re-examine NYT v. Sullivan, citing original understanding (the case involves Alan Dershowitz suing CNN). If they want to quote original understanding, quite a few modern-day First Amendment cases should be decided the other way. A lot more limits were allowed back then. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, dissented in a qualified immunity case involving a prisoner alleging mistreatment. There is a good originalist argument, ignored by conservative justices, that juries should have wide discretion to find government officials liable for wrongdoing. The Founding generation thought juries were the "palladium of liberty," even more than judges, who were creatures of the state.  

Each Trump nominee did not take part in a case without saying why. 

There should be another "clean-up" order, with perhaps more recusals, later in the week.

Opinions 

Barrett (with Roberts + the liberals) upholds a rule regarding mail-in ballots. Rick Hasen argues that "text,  history, and longstanding practice going back to the Civil War" back her up. A somewhat unhinged Alito opinion, however, still received four votes. 

Kagan continues the expansion of the reach of the Fourth Amendment to "geofence warrants," regarding the location of cellphone users. Alito, Thomas, and Barrett dissented. Gorsuch concurs but tosses in some cosplay about original understanding.

[Orin Kerr of Volokh Conspiracy is one resource for this topic.]

Roberts had the big two for the day involving agencies. The Federal Reserve, 5-4, can retain its "for cause" removal rules. The dissenters partially complain about the reach of the opinion, which broadly rules to bring clarity to the question.

(People are arguing that Roberts/Kavanaugh selectively exempt the Federal Reserve "to protect their stock portfolios." The special exemption is dubious. OTOH, various agencies regulate financial matters. They also affect stock portfolios.)

Not so for other agencies, overturning long practice (at least from the late 19th Century) and precedent (from the 1930s). The whole thing is bullshit, 6-3, Sotomayor (Kagan usually handles this issue) with the dissenting opinion for the liberals. 

(Her dissent, which she read from the bench, is very good. We should have audio/video.) 

The First Congress split various ways regarding the proper constitutional and policy rules for removal. It is a political question that should be left to congressional discretion. The dissent is correct that the majority forgets its "place." The voters need to secure a new Congress that reminds them. 

The 6-3 majority puts its thumb on one side. Perhaps, it is an ironic move to honor the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (tyrannical king). 

Some more opinions tomorrow.

ETA: A discussion about them. 

Texas Bible Reading List

I discuss Texas putting out a new reading list for schools that includes biblical stories. One theme is that we should think about such things, including the meaning of the Ten Commandments. Also, yes, this has a feel of an illegitimate sectarian establishment of religion. But let's go deeper. It's for 2030. We have time.

Alito Day at SCOTUS

First Off ...

The first opinion handed down today [Th] was a preemption case. Kavanaugh spoke for seven (Thomas also concurred to turn back the clock on the Commerce Clause) while Jackson (and Gorsuch) dissented. The involved pesticide labels or such.

Alito Time 

The next three opinions were all by Alito. Okay. 

All were 6-3 the normal way. The conservatives disagreed somewhat in one case on the reasoning. Barrett added a "I'm so reasonable" concurrence in the Second Amendment case.

Kagan briefly dissented in the 2A case. Jackson provided much more discussion. 

Jake Charles ("Law prof, Pepperdine Law; Affiliated Scholar, Duke Center for Firearms Law. I write about constitutional law, especially the Second Amendment") on Bluesky notes various problems with Alito's history.

The case involved Hawaii having a law where property owners are presumptively not inclined to allow people to bring in guns. They could, mind you, give permission. 

Kagan flagged all the evidence that the Administration's policy on Haitians is racist. The majority was Mr. Magoo, this not being an affirmative action case where the "racism" of remedial policies will be flagged. 

Sotomayor dealt with a Mexican border dispute, announcing her dissent from the bench. Alito had a follow-up response on top of his opinion summary. It is not clear when this last (if ever) happened.

Dusty Ray Spencer Execution 

Meanwhile, a bit later, with no open dissents, the Supreme Court rejected (without comment) a final appeal before (after over 30 years) Florida executed Dusty Ray Spencer. He murdered his wife. 

The final claim raises an intellectual disability argument. I truly doubt, under normal rules, there is a compelling reason to take the case. He should not be executed on other grounds. 

Still, the order paved the way to taking a human life. A brief discussion, by someone, was warranted. 

Upcoming

The next opinion day is Monday.

The Supreme Court late Friday stayed an order that would have forced former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge to either disclose a confidential source or pay $800 a day in court sanctions.

A response is due next week. 

Mets Manager Fired

The Mets had a horrible April. They were a few games over .500 in May. They started to play around .500 baseball. Was there some hope? 

Now, they are in another extended losing streak. They were swept by the Cubs, including a horrible doubleheader, the night game having six errors. 

The finale started well (if no scoring). After they went behind three, because of errors, they came back (two homers by bench players). They lost in the 10th, 4-3. Four game sweep. 

Al Green, 48, joined the organization in 2023 and previously served as Senior Vice President, Baseball Development. He will serve as the Interim Manager, effective immediately, for the remainder of the 2026 season. Green previously managed the San Diego Padres from 2016-19, guiding the club to a 274-366 (.428) record. The infielder played parts of four Major League seasons with the Diamondbacks (2004-06) and appeared in four games with the Mets in 2009.

David Peterson, the longest tenured Mets player, was traded to the Cubs in the middle of the series. Peterson had some good times, but after a great start in 2024, has struggled.

They finally bit the bullet. The manager was fired. The Phillies did so earlier this season and now they are doing very well. Not a 1-1 connection, but I think it was a factor.

The team was patched together dubiously and injuries made it worse. Carlos Mendoza had a thankless job. But he didn't seem to do it that well. At some point, consequences have to be brought, even if there is no magical follow-up.

David Stearns, president of baseball operations, has not done a good job either. He should be fired. Harder to do that. 

The team is not playing well in a variety of ways. It is not just people out of position playing badly though that doesn't help. Position players: catcher, shortstop, and outfield positions (tossing in Soto) look okay. Two of them are rookies. Who knows with Baty. A lot of question marks. 

Rotation? Who knows. You have one potential ace having growing pains. Another (now hurt) guy who looks like he can be a good mid-rotation guy. A vet who is doing okay. Another key piece who is hurt. Trade bait vet "ace" doing somewhat mediocre, especially given his role. 

Pen? Got some good arms. 

Another thing to do is to dispose of Senga, a disappointment. Maybe, they are trying to get something for him, hoping some team will accept a low-priced reclamation project. 

The team is hard to root for. The 2024 team had a good mix. This one was (as I said) somewhat patched together, having a bunch of injuries (including to key players), and bad play. A new manager that feels like a career utility guy adds to the general malaise. 

Oh well.

I don't need the talk where people insist there is "still a chance." They are around 10 games out in a busy wild card race. It's the halfway point.

Just watching, not stressed, with no real hopes, can be comforting on some level. The problem is that this team is rather dull and hard to care about. 

ETA: The first game under the new manager was another loss. It was a more respectable one versus the Phillies with Zack Wheeler (remember, he is not a Met now) facing off against a rookie. 

They lost 2-1, partially because Soto was robbed of a two-run homer. They only had one error, and it didn't lead to a run. They had a shot to come back in the ninth. Be nice if they did, but baby steps. 

SCOTUS Watch: First Opinion Day

The first opinion day of the week (yesterday) disposed of five cases, all somewhat also-rans. The opinions largely broke down 6-3. 

The oral argument didn't bode well for a prisoner trying to obtain damages against state prison officials for violating his religious liberty. The reason was not that the conservative justices only care about Christians. 

Holt v. Hobbs, for instance, protected the rights of a Muslim prisoner. The justices do somewhat selectively care about religious liberty. Nonetheless, the reason for the opinion here is likely somewhat different. Wrong all the same. 

Kagan and Jackson joined the result in a case about the Alien Tort Statute (the trend has been limited protections), but joined much of Sotomayor's dissent on why the majority went too far. 

The liberals fully disagreed with the conservatives in an immigration case. Thomas for the conservatives.

The one kumbaya moment was an overreach of a case involving the Takings Clause. Fair market value is fair enough when the government sells a property in a tax sale, as long as the whole thing is otherwise fair. 

Some libertarians might be upset, but I looked into the details (did so in response to an early response to this guy), and this was no great travesty or anything.  This is the case that it's okay to give to Alito. 

There will be more pain for the liberal side of things (and more hot-button cases) in the upcoming days. 

NY Primary

My district had two races: state comptroller and the House (Ritchie Torres).  The liberal challengers didn't do well. They did well in some other places, including Brad Lander, Mayor Mamdani's choice. 

It was a low turnout race in my polling place. I manned the only polling table (there are usually two). I appreciate those who showed up, a few with little children. Democracy is action.

SCOTUS Watch: Orders

The Order List was longer than usual. So, we had additional writings, particularly an apparent 6-3 per curiam, summarized by Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky this way:

By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court reverses a decision in favor of Pedro Hernandez, a mentally impaired man who was pressured into an allegedly false confession of murder through these👇unconstitutional tactics. The supermajority says he did not face a deprivation of "clearly established" rights.

The liberals wouldn't have taken the case. It amounts to an "error correction" of an allegedly misapplication of the rules for federal habeas appeals. Some local coverage. 

Alito and Thomas would have taken or decided some crime-related cases (one involving the use of race) the other way. 

Jackson followed her practice regarding not rejecting certain appeals by incarcerated people allegedly abusing the pauper's petition rules. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, would have taken a case involving a claim of intellectual disability in a capital case. Texas supported the appeal, but the Texas courts (this happened before) blocked it from happening below. Four justices earlier would have tightened the rules in such cases, so this isn't surprising. 

The Supreme Court granted another so-called "Bivens" case, involving a remedy for constitutionally based abuses. The claim won below, and Bivens has been much disfavored. So, it doesn't bode well. Congress can address the situation. 

We will have  (signed) opinions on Tuesday and Thursday. There is likely to be at least one more opinion day. Toss is a scheduled execution.