Supreme Court Watch: Opinion Day etc.

There were various oral arguments this week, but the biggest news was the Case of the Cursing Cheerleader. A disappointed teen cursed on Snapchat in disappointment for losing a varsity cheerleader position. She was suspended from the team for a year, which is a ridiculous overreaction.

But, is any school penalty for off campus speech of this nature warranted? I am much less sure of the answer to that, and the justices appeared unsure too. Their concern for line drawing would seem to arise when applying Tinker (armbands) in school as well.  After Tinker, the Supreme Court mostly left these disputes to the lower courts.  The exceptions were a vulgar speech at a school event, rules involving a school paper and dealing with a pro-marijuana (though it could have been seen as a nonsense thing) sign at a school event (thus support of illegal conduct).  

It is the sort of case that is a good general thought experiment for the average person (or student) too. C-SPAN, however, decided the live streamed oral argument was appropriate for its more heavily watched three television channels.  This continues to be a complaint of mine -- for years, Brian Lamb and others want the Supreme Court to televise. Now, there is a half-step with live streaming.  But, after doing differently when it first started, C-SPAN only streamed live online. 

===

After the Order List, a miscellaneous order dropped that rejected an application of a stay.  The only real question for me is why it was not just included with the other orders.  These sorts of stand alone things seem not really too time sensitive most of the time.  One other tidbit was that the losing side was represented by Lisa "I'm a liberal but support Trump justices" Blatt, who also represented the school in the cheerleader case. 

===

Only Chief Justice Roberts went to the smaller President Biden Address to Congress (it's not a SOTU! just him talking about the state of the union and offering suggestions for new policy). Biden went to say hi at one point.  Sigh.  I'm not someone who is mesmerized by such speeches, but was so nice to see Biden there.  A real POTUS.  I think the start of the speech, including introducing the two women behind him, was the strongest.  After there was a lot of policy stuff, but the start, including the COVID stuff, was the most powerful.  Some other good spots, including reminding us that this country is based on an idea (equal justice). 

===

The 6-3 ruling, with an unusual voting line-up, left open access to a form of deportation relief for noncitizens who were served a “notice to appear” for immigration proceedings via a series of documents, instead of the required single comprehensive notice.

The one opinion that dropped on Thursday was interesting given the line-up with Kavanaugh (with Roberts and Alito) in dissent. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion was not too surprising -- at times, he will have pro-defendant type opinions, especially if they limit federal power, and he can be convinced that the statutory text requires that result.  Certain flourishes in writing, including repeated dismissive comments about the dissent being basically stupid, also doesn't surprise.  

Was the opinion correct?  I'm inclined to follow a rule of leniency when possible in such cases, but won't pretend to fully know.  Still, such a rule seems to be appropriately applied when all three liberals are joined by three conservatives.  The good result, a good drive of the car, again doesn't mean the car being stolen should be forgotten. Also, here is a liberal take that it really wasn't great anyways -- again see my comments too.

Alito and Kavanaugh going the other way is not too surprising.  Roberts doesn't dissent much, so his vote is interesting.  You would think the logical move was a switch of Roberts and Thomas, but guess here the statutory etc. argument convinced him.  Barrett seems at this early date someone who will not just be a kneejerk conservative, at least when there is wiggle room.  Kavanaugh wrote the dissent here, which was longer than the majority opinion.  Breyer probably was happy to have another "see! we don't just split in obvious ways" example.

(There is an edit to the opinion though "complaint" sounds right.) 

ETA: This analysis flags the majority's use of "alien," which the Biden Administration has deemed inappropriate. I wonder how Sotomayor felt. 

===

Death Penalty: I referenced in a past entry the short briefing requested by the Supreme Court involving the the opening of arguing that the firing squad is a possible alternative in a Missouri death penalty case.  The multitude of hedges there is telling -- we are not exactly talking about a sure thing. 

The state provided its reply this week as seen on this page.  Basically, the danger of lethal injection in the case is alleged to be weak, but anyways, the two "alternatives" (lethal gas and firing squad) are not available anyway.  Since the current, dubious, rule is that you need both, that's 0/2.  Again, the record for lethal injection has been at best mixed in recent years.  

It's a bit gruesome, but I continue to look for an execution using an alternative method.  The firing squad always a bit "niche" and seen as a bit to graphic among other things, nitrogen gas seems the more likely option.  

====

No further orders on Friday or opinion days scheduled.