SCOTUS Update: First Signed Opinions Drop

After without comment ("brief order" is sometimes used but that implies some content) deposing of a stupid Trump post-election lawsuit, the Supreme Court dropped four signed opinions on Thursday.

The theme in the opinions were short opinions that were basically all unanimous though a justice (or whatever Gorsuch is) had something to add at times.  A summary of three can be found here with the fourth involving leaving be a local pharmacy rule as not pre-empted by federal law.  As Sotomayor notes, the matter is of some importance and overall it shows how local discretion involves a range of subjects that might in some instance raise federal law implications.  

As Alito says in his own opinion, there will be reasonable debates, and the Supreme Court has to on balance settle the disputes.  To give credit, his brief opinion in a military capital case was well written, spelling out the details and settling the issue is a calm succinct matter.  The opinion avoids wider debates on the Eighth Amendment.  The same with Thomas' opinion that as a bare minimum allows under RFRA the right to money damages, here related to an alleged wrong involving Muslims and the no fly list matters. And, as Alito notes, many of these disputes can be relatively briefly handled, though judges do love words. 

The RFRA opinion has an interesting brief summary of Oregon v. Smith and what RFRA did:  "RFRA secures Congress’ view of the right to free exercise under  the  First  Amendment,  and  it  provides  a  remedy  to  redress violations of that right."  Just how much power does Congress have the right to a "view" of a constitutional provision that courts interpret?  Also, if RFRA "restores" the previous rule, does it do more as suggested by Hobby Lobby?  Without more, not clear, and future cases probably will at least somewhat modify the application of that old precedent.  

The fourth case was a punt on standing grounds in a potentially divisive dispute involving regulating the number of state judges by party or "major party."  Then, we had the first of two executions scheduled this week, involving someone many saw was a horrible choice to execute even if you support the death penalty in some cases.  This includes members of the jury and the Department of Justice pardon division.  This was for various reasons, including ones that (as three justices, Sotomayor with an opinion, flagged) had constitutional problems.  

He was executed.  We also had reports of past federal executions spreading the Big V.  No shock there.  Execution scheduled by feds later today and three for January.  Today's defendant is probably less sympathetic though does raise intellectual disability claims that can help one look past his crimes to some degree.  

Update: As expected, the Supreme Court rejected without comment those claims with Sotomayor (with Kagan) dissenting, saying there is a case to raise a claim based on statutory barriers to executing the mentally retarded.  No procedural bar in her view.  No comment from Breyer.  

Some wanted a statement of principle rejecting the crazy Texas lawsuit against four states that brought in a lot of comment nationwide. The justices went with barebones rejection, Alito (and Thomas) slightly dissenting since they think there is an obligation to take any such case procedurally. No comment on the merits.  

The Court also granted a securities law case and announced more orders (likely boring) and one or more likely opinions on Monday.