SCOTUS Watch: 3/3

These three [of eight left] (SCOTUSBlog summaries) were covered on Friday with Thomas joining the liberals in the standing cases and the liberals splitting in the other two:

[1] In TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, the justices held 5-4 that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.  

Comment: Kavanaugh wrote this one and it has potential to restrain access to the federal courts. Like the administrative law type appointment/removal etc. questions, if somewhat more "judicial," it is troublesome Congress' power to set discretionary policy as they deem the needs require is being interfered with here. And, in a way that is likely to set up various confusions.  Like in the Takings Clause case, things like "concretely" is rather subjective.  Standing law is infamously arbitrary.

Thomas has a strong and blunt dissent that is straightforward and joined by the liberals except in a minor way.  Kagan basically finds yet again something precedent requires, but notes that the point of disagreement shouldn't matter much.  Thomas notes that the majority opinion in the long run might not be too helpful for the credit agency since it leaves open state lawsuits though the judges are concerned with their own power here.  

This is one of these cases where people who are intuitive notice that even if abortion rights still exist and such, the Barrett Court (to use Stevens' approach of labeling it with the latest confirmation) has moved things significantly.  It is a "limited" movement if you assume the Court was really going to move really far.  But, that's spinning things.

[2] In HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, the justices held 6-3 that under the Renewable Fuel Program’s fuel blending requirements for domestic refineries, a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an “extension” even if the refinery did not seek a hardship exemption every year after initially doing so. 

Comment:  The notable thing on some level here is that it is not only Barrett's first written dissent, but the guys are going against the girls. Both are somewhat trivial, of course, but also Breyer can at times be more "conservative" or otherwise stand out from Sotomayor and Kagan.  How that applies here is unclear, but you can see divisions there. I won't pretend to know who is right here; it is basic use of judicial power to provide clear answers among reasonable options.  But, both Trump appointees (Gorsuch wrote the majority) was sure textual analysis was clear one way or the other.  As usual, as noted in Strict Scrutiny Podcast, not really.

[3] In Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, the justices held 6-3 that Alaska Native Corporations are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. 

Comment:  Sotomayor, Happy Birthday, wrote the majority here, tossing in a fish related example (SSP really hated it) that both the majority and dissent went with. Gorsuch dissented, which might have miffed him given his role as the "tribal judge," but the issue here was how to allot funds between various tribes.  So, even though Native American issues is one area where Gorsuch stands out some -- putting aside certain cases without much ideological heat -- it is not a straightforward issue. 

===

Five cases left, including a major voting rights case (or two; there is a disclosure case too). On that front, there is also action outside the courts as seen by the filibustering of debate on a major voting rights bill. Also, the Garland Justice Department Friday morning announced they will sue Georgia, alleging their new voting restriction law is discriminatory.  

Thursday was the last scheduled conference until the "long" conference in September preps for the new term in October.  

We then (people who keep an eye on these things) waited for the Supreme Court to schedule the next opinion day. And, waited.  Day ended with nothing.