SCOTUS Watch: Order/Opinion Monday

Somewhat busy day at the Supreme Court though nothing much really happened.

Order List: Amy Howe's Order List summary suggests numerous decisions of note were made even if there was no grants or notable orders other than rejecting some things involved.  And, she doesn't even include them rejecting a COVID vaccine mandate rule out of New York that Sotomayor rejected, the litigants tried again with Gorsuch, who referred it to the Court, which rejected it again. 

Bill Cosby case was rejected.  A death penalty case they repeatedly relisted was denied without comment for whatever reason. Thomas with a statement involving his concerns about the application of an Internet immunity law in a way he deems too broad (see also, The Cult of the Constitution).  Thomas might have a point there, especially if Mary Anne Franks is correct.  

Oh. I forgot to mention one other thing that Amy Howe helpfully tossed in.  A law professor requested ("my bad") for more time, saying he made a mistake based on changing COVID filing rules.  The mistake led to his (one) client to run out of time.  They rejected the request without comment. It looks gratuitous since they could have accepted the filing and rejected the case as a whole anyways.  I guess you have to have one set of consistent rules, but you still can grant a reasonable mistake happened. 

SCOTUS Opinion:   The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) has for years now tied various justices in knots.  Prof. Leah Litman of Strict Scrutiny Podcast is one expert on the matter.  The "criminal" won here and did so unanimously.  

The nine did split in various ways with Gorsuch simply concurring in judgment.  His pal Sotomayor joined a chunk of his analysis while still joining Kagan's (her first of the term; Kavanaugh is the one with none now) opinion.   

This is one of those cases where the purpose of the Supreme Court to put out a single clear answer on federal law to provide guidance for others comes into play.  Kagan being a good writer is particularly helpful. 

She also tosses some spleen at concurring judges Barrett and Gorsuch.  Who toss some back.  Kavanaugh pats Gorsuch on the head, but says why he is wrong.  And so it goes.  This is how the colleagues split into factions while trying to retain an overall sense of politeness. 

(And, for sake of completeness, a couple typos were found in the torture case.  Recently, I also found this "activity page" on the website!)

Redistricting Dispute:  In theory, the Supreme Court could now take a bit of a break, the next conference coming next week.  Not so.  In recent memory, the Supreme Court -- even after handing down orders and/or opinions in the morning -- repeatedly had something else up their sleeve.

This time it was two orders regarding disputes over the well litigated issue of redistricting.  A Pennsylvania case was simply rejected, noting a three judge court was handling it.  The expected three (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) would have intervened in North Carolina. Kavanaugh is game (though the argument is bogus) but not here.  

It's a matter of time for this case to be tossed on the pile with a bunch of other ideological disputes the Barrett Court will decide.  They just don't want to use the "shadow" or whatever you want to call it docket to deal with it.  And, when the matter is finally decided, my money is on five votes (at least) for more federal interference on what state judges can do to decide federal redistricting cases, even under state law.  

===

What next?  We shall see.   One possibility is action in the next ten days or whatever regarding emergency relief sought in a RFRA case involving anti-vaxxer SEALS.  That case already has brought some drama.  Or, it can be something else.