Virtual SCOTUS: We're Done ... See ya in October

With ten cases, some major, in May, it turned out that SCOTUS got out of dodge pretty fast -- via a novel (should be typical; even here you wouldn't know from it except for the date that something special happened) end of the term Chief Justice press release this morning, they aren't even waiting to drop the clean-up orders.  We also heard about a few more more minor court retirements. As one veteran court watcher noted, we didn't hear about Kennedy at first either.  Will see if we have the normal three summer order list days. An announcement is usually posted a little while after the final day of the June session.

The first case today is a bit of a joker.  By a sort of a quirk, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that under the Major Crimes Act that a chunk of Oklahoma is still "Indian country," though people figured that wasn't so since around the first Roosevelt Administration.  It was split 4-4 with Gorsuch not taking part. They found another case to hear the question, now with a full (if more tainted) bench, and it came down 5-4.  Roberts wrote his only dissenting opinion of the term (another court watcher flagged one other time he was in dissent -- in the unanimous jury case) and the Court's big Native American guy (aka Stolen Seat Guy) wrote the opinion with some eloquent flourishes about the rights and wrongs of Native Americans.  Still might be the wrong result.

Kavanaugh has already shown concern about racism (at times) and trying to find a way to thread the needle.  Gorsuch is a Scalia/Thomas guy who will (in his particular voice, often a tad full of himself) go his own way, sometimes to reach a good result.  I won't pretend to know if this is the right result, but it's the law now.  I'm inclined to think Roberts very well might be correct.  Us suddenly realizing such a major matter of jurisdiction is actually Native American with so much water under the bridge seems unlikely.  But, sometimes, major questions are pushed under the table and the results leave something to be desired. Or, the implications are ignored unless we are forced to decide. We shall see how much this matters.

(As with the faithless electors duo, the other case was decided by applying the one that received full treatment.  Gorsuch did not take part but here alone Thomas and Alito still dissented.  Roberts and Kavanaugh stuck with stare decisis for the day.) 

Roberts had both of the Trump financials with Thomas and Alito in dissent in both.  Roberts channeled John Marshall here, including keeping various balls in the air while calling balls and strikes.  The state case came first and the opinion is dealt with in around twenty pages with the headnotes doing a good job summarizing things.  The broadest argument made wasn't even accepted by the dissenters.  Basically, "the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for financial  records  relating  to  the  President  and  his  businesses" can be subpoenaed in a state grand jury proceeding.  No heightened scrutiny is involved, except some concern for his office and needs. Like others, evidence of harassment or overbreadth can be raised.  So, the matter is sent back for further proceedings. 

Being July, the assumption is this won't be decided before the election.  This makes one cynical and pessimistic.  Maybe, the grand jury itself will see the materials in secret before then.  Still, the net result here is fair enough -- we shall see if any skullduggery gives Trump special favors later on.  The result here is understandable since it in the long run honors the power of the courts.  There was some possibility that federalism concerns would be flagged, but then that goes both ways -- honoring federalism means honoring local courts.  I'm unsure what will happen, but in the long term, some justice and clarity very well might occur regarding Trump's financial crimes.  His niece's book (she also helped the award winning NYT report) also is well timed now to further that line.

I am less accepting of the congressional investigation decision which has the same breakdown. (Kavanaugh concurred suggesting some middle standard in the New York case; he didn't here.)  The dissents were even more shoddy though -- the concern for Trump's so-called "private" papers (seriously? it is not like they are asking for medical records -- though via the 25A they very well might -- or something)  by some nebulous right to privacy.  The dissents also basically channel Trump's "dude process" arguments by laying on additional fake rules (e.g., "you can only do this for during an official impeachment proceeding").  This case was held in December, before the impeachment.  The House flagged that it was impeachment related.  The second count was about obstruction of Congress.  But, unlike the Nixon tapes, the thing was delayed for over six months.  The result delays things further, probably past the election.  Again, in theory, not necessarily.  Seems a tad optimistic. 

The result was somewhat expected -- neither side lost really, but a new more restrictive balancing test standard was crafted for the lower courts to apply.  Thus, delay continues.  This is making shit up.  Congress has power to investigate, including the head of the executive department up to and including impeachment proceedings.  The way they do this is a political question.  There were a few cases that were concerned about abusive investigations of average people, including during the McCarthy Era. This ain't that.  The guidelines on some level seem reasonable. Trump should lose each. But, so what on some basic level.  On some basic level, yes, rule of law was upheld. The bottom line is more hazy. 

Then, we have the final orders.  A few cases granted that do not seem too notable. A curious footnote was a lagging qualified immunity case involving Kim Davis (remember her?).  No action seems to have been taken.  BTW, two federal executions are scheduled next  week, one temporarily stayed.  Summer order lists scheduled with one in September this time with everything pushed back.  [Slightly edited.]

ETA: Since people have been focused on the Trump tax returns, it is important to underline the breadth of the concerns of the congressional subpoenas sought here.  It underlines too the bs of delay and enabling:

The House subpoenas are not about tax returns. The most important of them--the one most likely to be upheld if there's still time--is HPSCI's, which is designed to assess whether Trump has foreign entanglements that might explain his obsequiousness to Russia. That might not change any votes among his 40% or so, but it sure is important for the Nation to know if its President is compromised by, or indebted to, foreign powers.

(comment here). Relevant too with the Friday news dump of Trump commuting the sentence of Roger Stone basically as payment for keeping quiet.  Top Republicans are already actually supporting this move.  Note too that an abusive use of pardons to obstruct justice was flagged in the Mueller Report.  Which is basically down the memory hole.