SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

This might be a light week for SCOTUS news [it was] while we finish the oral argument schedule (this discussion suggests the sentencing case has various interesting aspects) and get ready for the home stretch of major decisions, including a still pending religious liberty case that promises some fireworks, even if the reach of the ruling is still unclear.

The Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in Feres v. United States. That unanimous decision bars any and all lawsuits brought by service members against the federal government for injuries that “arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to” their military service.

An earlier op-ed criticized an old ruling that in the 1980s was flagged as wrong by Scalia and three liberals (Blackmun joined the majority cited in that op-ed). The argument (today again joined by a solo dissent in the Order List by Thomas) was that the law clearly did not draw such a line. The policy reasons might be valid if it didn't, but that is Congress to say now given the law again did not allow such open-ended court discretion. Again, from the op-ed putting forth the "pro" side:

Why has the court held firm on a decision so widely criticized? In that same 1987 case in which Justice Scalia dissented with three other justices, the court identified three justifications. First, injuries to service members related to their military service should not be left to the vagaries of 50 different state laws but should instead be subject to a uniform federal rule. Second, Congress had already provided at least some kind of remedy to injured service members through “generous statutory disability and death benefits.” And third, tort suits arising out of military service “would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.”

Justice Thomas regularly finds some old precedent he doesn't like, but some old precedents should go. OTOH, Kagan has consistently opposed challenging precedents, even one involving unanimous juries. So, though the case was "re-listed," it is not surprising it was not taken for argument. Various happenings in the Order List, including a request for a response from the SG, but this was really the only thing that stood out.

Well, except for the announcement of a new SCOTUS marshal, Col. Gail Curley. Congrats. And, yes, Thomas asking questions is a good thing. He is pretty good at it and either way has influence. 

ETA: There was also another edit to Google LLC v. Oracle America.