Bonus SCOTUS Content

Since the release of census data is time sensitive, it was suggested that the Supreme Court would address it soon. And, they did via a short per curiam disposing it on standing and ripeness grounds. There seems to be some merit to that, noting (as more than one blog noted) such things are applied arbitrarily. Wrongful actions alone won't get you a decision (but maybe this is an unjust result) though the dissent flags that the government here clearly stated its intentions and in the process will cause unnecessary delay and cost. OTOH, it seems fairly clear that the Trump actions are not final, plus just what they entail is in doubt.

(Some were annoyed that the Supreme Court did not sign the opinion dropped here, but as things go, this is a more appropriate usage of per curiam. That is traditionally used to drop uncontroversial brief opinions that do not substantively address the merits of a claim. [Other special cases arise, such as the author of the opinion leaving the Court.] But, here, there was a strong dissent. So, as a matter of good policy, it probably would be better for it to be signed. Cf. the Texas per curiam which was a dismissive rejection that only had a brief "statement" of two justices adding something to it. This "back of the hand" from the Court very well might have been too brief, but it is the sort of thing that makes sense for the Court as an intitution, so to speak, to "say.")

The liberals via Breyer dissented, going to the merits in an opinion about three times as long, spelling out why Trump's position is stupid. At first blush, interesting Breyer would not accept a punt, especially with the Biden Administration coming in. But, he did partially dissent in a previous census case, and veteran Supreme Court journalist Lyle Denninson entitled his summary "Trump gets big — temporary — win on census." And, the merits after all are pretty obvious, including both on partisan and racist (a theme in the earlier opinion too) grounds. As Breyer noted: “History shows that, all things considered, that approach has served us well. Departing from the text is an open invitation to use discretion to increase an electoral advantage.”

But, we had even more bonus content. Supreme Court reporters on Twitter referenced a new policy of some sort of a bonus order day even without a conference intervening, to fill in the argument slots (good many) still open. If this is a thing, not that they would explain it, or not, they granted a few cases of some note either way. SCOTUSBlog summarized:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning added three new cases to its merits docket, agreeing to hear arguments in a pair of consolidated cases in which the justices will decide whether colleges should be able to provide greater compensation to student-athletes, as well as an appeal from the credit-reporting giant TransUnion, which is challenging a class action lawsuit against it.

The student athlete matter touches upon the important issue of the amount of compensation allowed, something that gets some degree of attention. College sports, at least football and basketball in some schools, can be quite profitable. How much students should be compensated, besides something like tuition (not nothing), is debated. 

The other matter has potential, especially with a six person majority, to move the needle on class action law. An amusing thing for me there was the competing summaries of the nature of the harms. The credit reporting company spoke of "an inaccurate credit report hindered his effort to secure credit, caused him embarrassment in front of family, and led him to cancel a vacation." While the other side flagged people being accused of being terrorists or drug dealers. A bit different, huh?

We also had a few orders dealing with the new normal regarding applying the Cuomo religious liberty case to various pending litigation. The rule seems to be that some will be sent back without comment, but (as was flagged by Kagan for the liberals in one case, arguing the case was moot) maybe now and then there will be a split. Why this is not just all treated together as compared to drip drip via often opaque orders via the shadow docket is up to the reader to figure out

Another, this time even less religious institution focused (thus the dissents flagged possible "hybrid" rights or something), was turned down (again in an unsigned order) for time reasons with Alito/Gorsuch dissenting.  Gorsuch again laid it on thick about religious liberty allegedly (no) getting second class treatment. They want to pull back Oregon v. Smith, the religious liberty case setting down the generally applicable law rule. Might get their chance, but not quite yet.

Is this it for 2020? Again, might get some stray order, and these days more would not really surprise.