Virtual SCOTUS Update

And Also: This article discusses how thought there is a shortage of blood that only Manhattan and Staten Island have permanent blood donation locations.  I'm with the woman -- speak as a blood donor for many years -- who doesn't think an extended subway trip is a good cost/benefit equation.  Put aside that on top of that, there will be another better part of an hour spent with a mask.  If blood is in so high demand, have more places to give them!  It's stupid as a rule that the Bronx (or even Brooklyn!) does not have a permanent center and Manhattan has several. 

Since the last Order List, we had three miscellaneous orders (note that separately things happen like requests for briefing from certain justices, relisting orders for conference discussion and other stuff that might just be on the case docket page).  Each are fairly important in their own ways though putting aside the execution matter there is still battles to be fought.

A troubling execution, as previously flagged, was allowed to go on without comment.  A battle between the House and DOJ over Mueller Grand Jury materials (taken up about two weeks before) continued with a cert petition due June 1 (the House as a back-up asked for an accelerated deadline).  And, a divided 9CA request from Idaho prison officials to block court-ordered sex reassignment surgery for a transgender prisoner was rejected though Alito/Thomas (without comment) dissented.

The scheduled Order List day for this week, delayed a day because of the holiday, was mostly a "see ya in June" affair.  Few things of passing note. Alito/Breyer ddn't take part in a denial for unstated financial conflict reasons.  A pending House bill would require notice unless there is a clear reason not to do so.  The wife of a deceased trans challenger replaced her though it might be notable that "wife" or "spouse" is not referenced, but "Trustee of the Aimee A. and Donna Stephens Trust" used instead.

And, the no comment passing of a California Voting Rights Act case was notable over at Election Law Blog.  I didn't note it, but a past order list not taking up any qualified immunity cases even regarding a blatant injustice was of some note to various court watchers.  OTOH, the Court held up deciding multiple gun disputes; to recall, we have two very tainted people having a key role in all these cases, including pending major disputes that were first heard in October and November.  #ButGorsuch  One major dispute that is a live controversy is the lines of delegation, which this article notes is perfectly fine as an "originalist" matter. 

But, who knows what that word even means. There is a conference scheduled on Thursday and June 1st (it's June!)  will at the very least have an update on the grand jury controversy and probably more orders.  Be unsurprising if we also have opinions that week too.  As noted, there are some major cases from last fall left though finishing the May bunch by the end of June might be unlikely.  We did have July opinions in the past.

I held from posting this since there often is -- for some reason that seems suggestive but it is not like they explain themselves -- some other separate order later in the day.  And, yes, from Kimberly Robinson: "#SCOTUS rejects Trump administration's request to halt court order requiring certain safety measures for covid-vulnerable inmates. But it's really a procedural ruling, noting that the administration hadn't appealed newest order."  The three most conservative justices still dissented (without comment), which is a tad gratuitous.  The order going out of its way to hedge is suggestive and is often the sort of thing you settle with when dealing with Roberts and/or Kavanaugh.  I hope Kagan has some outlet from always battling.

(SCOTUSBlog with more details. Seriously, TAG?)  

Also saw that among the graduation speakers this year was Chief Justice Roberts for his son's high school graduation (not the first time he spoke to one of his children's class).  He had a message of humility and compassion. Me personally, I think it would have been nice if Roberts made a statement before the telephonic arguments (saw one Chief Justice of a state court doing this), taking notice of the times and thanking all for dealing with it.

But, they went another way, basically trying to stay above the fray.  We even have to hear indirectly, from the Court's spokeswoman, that they are in good health though RBG does provide press releases regarding her medical condition from time to time.  As to the telephonic arguments, I noted in the past that SCOTUS vet Lyle Denninston was not really fan. Think he had some good points but was too critical.  For whatever reason, he had been more actively (he retired in his 80s a few years back) commenting lately.  See, here, a sort of general reaction.  One issue I had was that it did not cite the long practice of video in other supreme courts.  Leah Litman had a report that suggested some gender discrimination.

I appreciate criticism of the telephonic arguments though as a whole did think they went fairly well, especially given their novelty. Think live broadcast also worked.  The "seriatem" approach has its ups/downs, including providing a path for some justices (especially Thomas) who might otherwise be crowded out.  I'm basically fine with Breyer's long-winded old slightly befuddled law professor questions but if they need to be pared back some to give other justices time, fine.  The issue of cutting justices off too in an unfair way can be addressed, but it is not like the normal approach is so much more ideal in that area.  The concern for more crosstalk to allow justices to push against each other is valid though again I think there is some way to do that here too even without some probable behind the scenes communication between some justices.

Again, multiple supreme courts, including in these times, used video and that helps some of these things.  Anyway, more might come but I'll post now.  Like with primaries, there is more to say than one might think.