SCOTUSBlog summaries today's opinions:
Kagan wrote the second opinion, which might have wider implications, if ones that she might not always go along with. Breyer joined on in part, not wanting to reach the constitutional merits and to apply it narrowly. Sotomayor and Ginsburg in dissent. Generally, I lean toward the sentiments of the last three, if possible, inclined to make these political questions as much as possible. When recess appointments were up, e.g., I was inclined to avoid the issue entirely though Breyer's limited opinion had merit. Anyway, this is bound to be a "to be continued" matter.
Sotomayor wrote the third, one of many opinions where the Supreme Court in recent years at least somewhat softened the edges of immigration law. Justice Kennedy had a concurrence that excited some people since he flagged an interest to at least temper "Chevron deference," which a few justices would use to strongly open up agency judgments to court review. He probably wouldn't go as far as others might go, but does this mean he wants to stick around to help decide? Alito dissented alone.
Gorsuch wrote the fourth notable perhaps for being a 5-4 decision, the fourth (by SCOTUS reporter Kimberly Robinson's count) he wrote. This is rather curious for someone in his first full year on the Court. I don't think they all were strictly liberal/conservative, though more than one was, as was this one. It included usual Gorsuch annoying word style. Ultimately, I really won't pretend to know who is right here, but it showed that statutory language is open to reasonable debate. This is one of those cases where an answer is determined, if one not compelled by any means, and that is probably more important than it necessary being the "right one." For support of the dissent's version see here.
More tomorrow and SCOTUS has more opinion analysis.
The most direct effect for the average person, if one Congress can change if it wants (it not doing so for years notable), would be the Internet tax ruling. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion which logically changes the law on the question though CJ Roberts dissent makes some good points [including Congress' ability to address the matter and the complications involved] with three liberals going along. Not a usual match-up. I guess when you have a dissent, already something likely to be a bit loose and have two of the best writers on board, the fact it was easy reading is not surprising. This includes some amusing examples on the complications of online retailers applies the nuances of local tax laws such as Twix v. Snickers.
- States can charge out-of-state retailers sales tax, at least in some circumstances, even if they don’t have a store or warehouse in the state, clearing the way to allow sales taxes on internet purchases (opinion in South Dakota here)
- Administrative law judges at SEC are “officers” of the US for purposes of Constitution’s appointments clause; ruling means that their appointments have been unconstitutional (opinion in Lucia here)
- DHS notice ordering noncitizen to appear for deportation proceedings but without specifying date or time does not stop clock for purposes of length of time spent in US & therefore eligibility to avoid being deported (opinion in Pereira here);
- Railroad employee’s exercise of stock options is not “compensation” subject to railroad retirement taxes (opinion in Wisconsin Central here).
Kagan wrote the second opinion, which might have wider implications, if ones that she might not always go along with. Breyer joined on in part, not wanting to reach the constitutional merits and to apply it narrowly. Sotomayor and Ginsburg in dissent. Generally, I lean toward the sentiments of the last three, if possible, inclined to make these political questions as much as possible. When recess appointments were up, e.g., I was inclined to avoid the issue entirely though Breyer's limited opinion had merit. Anyway, this is bound to be a "to be continued" matter.
Sotomayor wrote the third, one of many opinions where the Supreme Court in recent years at least somewhat softened the edges of immigration law. Justice Kennedy had a concurrence that excited some people since he flagged an interest to at least temper "Chevron deference," which a few justices would use to strongly open up agency judgments to court review. He probably wouldn't go as far as others might go, but does this mean he wants to stick around to help decide? Alito dissented alone.
Gorsuch wrote the fourth notable perhaps for being a 5-4 decision, the fourth (by SCOTUS reporter Kimberly Robinson's count) he wrote. This is rather curious for someone in his first full year on the Court. I don't think they all were strictly liberal/conservative, though more than one was, as was this one. It included usual Gorsuch annoying word style. Ultimately, I really won't pretend to know who is right here, but it showed that statutory language is open to reasonable debate. This is one of those cases where an answer is determined, if one not compelled by any means, and that is probably more important than it necessary being the "right one." For support of the dissent's version see here.
More tomorrow and SCOTUS has more opinion analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!