Update: Some final orders, including granting review on a few more cases. Notable to me were some cases sent back to be re-examined in light of the Trinity Lutheran opinion; they include scholarships and secular textbooks. Also, the circuits were distributed, with Gorsuch getting Alito's old digs.
The only apparent retirement is to long time SCOTUS reporter Lyle Denniston,* but today was still a busy day. I'm going to summarize here as before but again lots of coverage at various places, including the legal blogs on the list to the right.
Some stuff put off to next term, including to quote SCOTUSBlog (covering two cases) ordering "reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the vagueness of crime of violence in the immigration laws." Probably turns on Gorsuch. A case involving selling cakes to gays that most thought was being held over for some dissent (now joined by Gorsuch) was simply taken for argument. Why in the hell did it take so long, being "relisted" over and over again? Was other ongoing litigation involved? Who knows. But, probably Gorsuch's vote mattered.
The travel ban case was taken for argument and there was a split decision (following a theme, Gorsuch joined a conservative wing that went further) that did stay it for those affected that had some (not totally clear who is covered) connection to the U.S. Simply not taking it very well might be the best policy, but especially with three conservatives who wished to go further, blocking a major executive policy on constitutional grounds is a case that the Supreme Court would likely take. In the long run, it is unclear what will amount to, but symbolism on all sides is a basic point here. Also, perhaps, injunction rules.
SCOTUS split 5-4, conservatives winning each time, in expected ways, in a class action and criminal rights case. Not sure how important these cases are though the expert in the linked summary suggests one is more notable than various other cases. The justices in effect punted a case involving a cross border shooting, Thomas [Gorsuch not taking part] saying he would go further, Breyer/RBG dissenting to address the merits. Result is expected, including the multiple opinions and two in dissent.
The order list also had various interesting statements and such (Gorsuch giving his .02 on many things, almost consistently in a conservative way; annoyingly folksy too**). Thomas/Gorsuch wanted to take a case involving public carry of firearms; RBG/Sotomayor (without comment) one where the felon restriction was limited somewhat. Among the bunch was a 6-3 (Gorsuch writing for Thomas/Alito) per curiam upholding the equal rights of same sex couples to have their names on birth certificates. Gorsuch thought they should have took the case but also used his dissent to suggest the same sex marriage cases should be interpreted more narrowly. It is important to note that Roberts silently went along with the majority here, as suggested by his silent acceptance of an earlier reference in the immigration case involving sex equality principles.
[Note: Some have noted that Roberts shouldn't be assumed to have joined the unsigned opinion in the birth certificate case. If that is the assumed rule, fine, but it is b.s. -- if a justice does not say anything, the logical and reasonable thing without more is to assume consent. In the border shooting per curiam, it is noted Gorsuch did not participate. So, I assume Roberts participated in the decision. If he wants to dissent, do so publicly. Anyway, this is going to be the general assumption and again it's notable. For the second time, without comment, Roberts went along with a citation of Obergefell v. Hodges and here to directly honor its holding in an opinion that at least in theory can be differentiated.]
The final case involves a state funding program that here involved a church school playground. My basic sentiment is that they shouldn't have decided things, it dubious activism (as compared to non-dubious, which is a thing) for them to do so. On the merits, except for a limiting footnote (Thomas and Gorsuch would have gone further), five justices deemed this a matter of religious discrimination, Breyer too if on a somewhat more limited grounds. The facts sound sympathetic but the actual harm very well is theoretical given the change of position by the state government. Use another case to settle issues.
I think the dissent, which engaged all the opinions while the majoirty does not seem to engage with it (I tried a "dissent" or "Sotomayor" word search), has the better case. Not sure how bad the majority will be applied in practice, but yes, a funding measure, a selective one at that (not a general benefit like police protection; it also as Sotomayor notes, has specific aspects that furthers troublesome entanglement issues) is treated differently. It is not some sort of act of discrimination to treat religion differently; religion in other cases (e.g., dealing with employees) get special benefits. Not funding religions you oppose is a tried and true means to protect religious liberty.
Anyways. Might be another general orders release to clean up certain things and then there will be three scheduled days (per past practice) during summer to do the same. Meanwhile, if necessary, they will release a miscellaneous order and do other things until the new term begins.
---
* I saw a reference on Twitter about a nice statement by Chief Justice Roberts on his service. Opinion days are not available for audio or video, but that would be an appropriate usage of the rarely used section on the Court's website regarding media advisories and press releases.
** For instance, Rick Hasen on Twitter: "Other thing I'd say about early [Judge] Gorsuch: his tone (and willingness to write so much alone so early) shows lack of humility." Does did annoy any of the justices? This fake humility shines through repeatedly, e.g., talk of "modest" additions to the majority in the religion case while assuring that he supports it as a whole.
The only apparent retirement is to long time SCOTUS reporter Lyle Denniston,* but today was still a busy day. I'm going to summarize here as before but again lots of coverage at various places, including the legal blogs on the list to the right.
Some stuff put off to next term, including to quote SCOTUSBlog (covering two cases) ordering "reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the vagueness of crime of violence in the immigration laws." Probably turns on Gorsuch. A case involving selling cakes to gays that most thought was being held over for some dissent (now joined by Gorsuch) was simply taken for argument. Why in the hell did it take so long, being "relisted" over and over again? Was other ongoing litigation involved? Who knows. But, probably Gorsuch's vote mattered.
The travel ban case was taken for argument and there was a split decision (following a theme, Gorsuch joined a conservative wing that went further) that did stay it for those affected that had some (not totally clear who is covered) connection to the U.S. Simply not taking it very well might be the best policy, but especially with three conservatives who wished to go further, blocking a major executive policy on constitutional grounds is a case that the Supreme Court would likely take. In the long run, it is unclear what will amount to, but symbolism on all sides is a basic point here. Also, perhaps, injunction rules.
SCOTUS split 5-4, conservatives winning each time, in expected ways, in a class action and criminal rights case. Not sure how important these cases are though the expert in the linked summary suggests one is more notable than various other cases. The justices in effect punted a case involving a cross border shooting, Thomas [Gorsuch not taking part] saying he would go further, Breyer/RBG dissenting to address the merits. Result is expected, including the multiple opinions and two in dissent.
The order list also had various interesting statements and such (Gorsuch giving his .02 on many things, almost consistently in a conservative way; annoyingly folksy too**). Thomas/Gorsuch wanted to take a case involving public carry of firearms; RBG/Sotomayor (without comment) one where the felon restriction was limited somewhat. Among the bunch was a 6-3 (Gorsuch writing for Thomas/Alito) per curiam upholding the equal rights of same sex couples to have their names on birth certificates. Gorsuch thought they should have took the case but also used his dissent to suggest the same sex marriage cases should be interpreted more narrowly. It is important to note that Roberts silently went along with the majority here, as suggested by his silent acceptance of an earlier reference in the immigration case involving sex equality principles.
[Note: Some have noted that Roberts shouldn't be assumed to have joined the unsigned opinion in the birth certificate case. If that is the assumed rule, fine, but it is b.s. -- if a justice does not say anything, the logical and reasonable thing without more is to assume consent. In the border shooting per curiam, it is noted Gorsuch did not participate. So, I assume Roberts participated in the decision. If he wants to dissent, do so publicly. Anyway, this is going to be the general assumption and again it's notable. For the second time, without comment, Roberts went along with a citation of Obergefell v. Hodges and here to directly honor its holding in an opinion that at least in theory can be differentiated.]
The final case involves a state funding program that here involved a church school playground. My basic sentiment is that they shouldn't have decided things, it dubious activism (as compared to non-dubious, which is a thing) for them to do so. On the merits, except for a limiting footnote (Thomas and Gorsuch would have gone further), five justices deemed this a matter of religious discrimination, Breyer too if on a somewhat more limited grounds. The facts sound sympathetic but the actual harm very well is theoretical given the change of position by the state government. Use another case to settle issues.
I think the dissent, which engaged all the opinions while the majoirty does not seem to engage with it (I tried a "dissent" or "Sotomayor" word search), has the better case. Not sure how bad the majority will be applied in practice, but yes, a funding measure, a selective one at that (not a general benefit like police protection; it also as Sotomayor notes, has specific aspects that furthers troublesome entanglement issues) is treated differently. It is not some sort of act of discrimination to treat religion differently; religion in other cases (e.g., dealing with employees) get special benefits. Not funding religions you oppose is a tried and true means to protect religious liberty.
Anyways. Might be another general orders release to clean up certain things and then there will be three scheduled days (per past practice) during summer to do the same. Meanwhile, if necessary, they will release a miscellaneous order and do other things until the new term begins.
---
* I saw a reference on Twitter about a nice statement by Chief Justice Roberts on his service. Opinion days are not available for audio or video, but that would be an appropriate usage of the rarely used section on the Court's website regarding media advisories and press releases.
** For instance, Rick Hasen on Twitter: "Other thing I'd say about early [Judge] Gorsuch: his tone (and willingness to write so much alone so early) shows lack of humility." Does did annoy any of the justices? This fake humility shines through repeatedly, e.g., talk of "modest" additions to the majority in the religion case while assuring that he supports it as a whole.
Ordered
reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the
vagueness of crime of violence 0in the immigration laws, and remanded
for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier
decision
Ordered
reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the
vagueness of crime of violence 0in the immigration laws, and remanded
for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier
decision
Ordered
reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the
vagueness of crime of violence 0in the immigration laws, and remanded
for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier
decision
Ordered
reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the
vagueness of crime of violence 0in the immigration laws, and remanded
for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier
decision
Ordered
reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the
vagueness of crime of violence 0in the immigration laws, and remanded
for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier
decision
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!