SCOTUS Watch: Summer Odds & Ends

RIP: As noted earlier this week, Justice Sotomayor's mom (in her 90s) has died. She has a great life story, including training to become a nurse in her 40s.

Summer Orders Update: The first scheduled summer order day is next week. It is not likely to be too notable, but we are for completeness here. Also, it annoys me that a scheduled order day gets so little respect, including at SCOTUSBlog. It is as much a scheduled order day as one during the regular term!

Roe: Various odds and ends continue to be covered as there is a lull in Supreme Court news. One thing is the start of anti-abortion briefs, including one joined by most Republicans (three women senators and around twenty-five or so House members did not join; three Republican senator trolls joined a stronger anti-Roe brief) focused on disposing of the viability line. In practice, that would result in a free-fall for abortion rights.  People do not just want to tinker with second trimester abortions here.  

Eviction Moratorium: We also had a notice from the Biden Administration regarding a CDC eviction moratorium that is due to run out at the end of the month.  It supports a legislative expansion and a partial extension by administrative means. 

The problem (other than the complications of legislative fixes) is a shadow docket ruling from last month that turned on Kavanaugh's vote -- the quote in the notice is actually not from the "Supreme Court," but his brief opinion saying he rejected the challenge only so far as the moratorium would run out at the end of July.  

The statement notes: "the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”  But, the quote is from the Kavanaugh opinion.  The basic effect is the same.

Four conservatives, without an opinion explaining why, would have put the moratorium on hold.  Four justices (including Roberts) rejected that without an opinion.  Now, I have seen some liberals/moderates suggest on statutory grounds there is a reasonable argument that the CDC's move was not authorized.  I don't know.  But, it would be nice if we actually had some sort of explanation.  Note even the old SCOTUS vet, who is still grumpy about the telephonic arguments and is kneejerker speaks of "abusing" of the shadow docket. 

Corrections: We also continue -- including in opinions related to orders -- corrections. I wonder how that sort of thing is done. Do people point it out to the chambers?  Do the justices have their clerks double check?  Are the justices bored and re-read while traveling or something?  

BTW, it's one more thing that would be useful on a FAQ page for orders and opinions.  They do have a FAQ, but it isn't comprehensive.  My push for a FAQ for orders stands -- orders have a bunch of minutiae that are lost on even regular court watchers.

Trump Tax Returns: The House might actually get the returns, years after they should have.  Dawn Johnsen, Acting Attorney General for OLC (her being blocked when nominated by Obama was something that particularly pissed me off -- I saw her as a special symbol to re-gain integrity and she was blocked for bullshit reasons)  signed an opinion authorizing it. 

The OLC opinion spent a lot of time interpreting the Supreme Court opinion (when they got around to it) worrying about the lower court not taking Trump's interests in hand enough.  A bullshit argument even if the net result was supposedly a sign the Roberts Court wasn't in the hock for Trump.  But, even granting that, DJ explains how there is a valid public purpose in the House commitee getting returns here.  I am just left with a "yeah, duh."