That is one unlikely majority, especially with Breyer more senior along with the Chief Justice, Thomas, and Alito. Sotomayor has it a bit easier with Breyer replaced with a junior liberal. Still unlikely as would be the in theory possible Kagan-Jackson majority. The best bet is to find something the high Federalists would dissent for and Roberts is recused. Kagan is harder.
(The release -- again automatically since they don't show up for opinion announcements these days, denying us a chance for opinion announcement audio at Oyez.com -- came least seniority to most. I won't do it in that order.)
There were two unanimous opinions. Barrett had a procedural opinion that gave a limited win (allowing the person a chance to fight on) regarding a tax case. Happy Tax Week. Maybe, the IRS will finally clear up my issue. (I asked AOC's office for help. I thought they forgot about me but then got a call that they need a privacy waiver. That day I receive another letter from the IRS saying they found another reason to delay things.)
==
Kagan also had a procedural opinion that helped the person who brought the appeal, but only so much. Providing some of her skillful prose ["The path of our decision has been as short as the hunt for Rue Saint-Honoré was long; our ruling is as simple as the conflict over its rightful owner has been vexed."], and attaching a couple pictures of the art, she explained why California law should be applied in an attempt to get back some Nazi seized art that wound up in Spain. To be continued.
(SCOTUSBlog has analysis to explain the nuances a bit more and it sounds like the family of the original owners still have a stiff hill to climb.)
==
Kagan's pen, quite sharp, was in dissent in a Gorsuch case involving habeas. I do not claim to have the expertise to parse such things, but Steve Vladeck and Leah Litman are usually reliable. So, if Mr. Shadow Docket thinks Kagan (for the liberals) is right for sneer at Gorsuch's "law office history" etc., her passion not for this case particularly, but the likelihood of what it will bode for the future, I'm inclined to agree.
[Prof. Litman also panned Breyer's latest "book" (if noting her liking the man) in a well received article.]
===
Sotomayor had the opinion (Alito thought the the majority went somewhat too far; Thomas for Gorsuch & Barrett dissented) in case involving regulating signs. The ordinance was upheld and as Breyer noted in a fairly convincing (to me) concurrence, part of the problem here is that the Roberts Court has become too one note regarding free speech cases, even when regulating commercial matters of this type.
==
The most notable opinion involved Puerto Rico.
Kavanaugh had the opinion upholding a federal policy where someone might be denied SSI benefits if they live in Puerto Rico. Ian Millhiser wrote last year (this case was argued fairly early, making one wonder about the drafting) that this was a tragic case. His write-up today does as well.
The tragedy is that justice is on the side of the litigant, but the result might be open season to second guess financial policy that can lead to unfortunate results. For instance, my governor was upset the Supreme Court didn't take a case where blue states alleged a certain tax policy was discriminatory to blue states. But, what constitutional rule protects states like that?
This suggests why this opinion was 8-1 though the opinion itself was a thin six pages. It is basically a case of wanting to get rid of the thing. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence finding a new constitutional toy -- he argues that federal equal protection should not be a 5A due process matter, but rest of the 14A Citizenship Clause. Thomas does, unlike in his same sex marriage dissent (where he had a
long passage sneering at it), recognize equal citizenship has a
"dignity" component.
At least, he "tentatively" talks about this. Now, on some level, a broad reading of the Citizenship Clause is not a bad idea (various liberals suggest it), but using (as noted in Legal Twitter) his usual selective history, abhorrence at applying equal protection to benefits, and so forth, the whole result is something of a mess when he does it. Plus, history and precedent does back an equality aspect to due process of law too.
Gorsuch, in one of his "when the asshole is right, he's right" opinions, concurs to argue the Insular Cases should go. These were a series of cases from the turn of the 20th Century until around 1920 that held the territories obtained after the Spanish American War can be treated differently than others. He notes (as does Sotomayor) that it was not requested, so he would not dissent on that ground.
(A few noted that since Gorsuch's concurrence summarized our racist history, that it might not be able to be taught some places who have problems with critical race theory. Perhaps, such laws are vague enough to have loopholes for this sort of thing.)
Anyway, it isn't clear (thought the majority avoided the point), if that alone would do the trick. During oral argument, the federal government argued that it was reasonable to treat states differently for purposes of tax policy if it was rational to do so. And, that is fair, but Sotomayor argues in her dissent (agreeing on the Insular Cases) that it is not shown here.
The advocate for the claimant here (and it seems if he was granted a waiver, the whole matter could have been avoided) made some open-ended arguments during the oral argument. He suggested the Guarantee Clause and so forth warranted treating the Territory Clause as not a fully open-ended congressional power. The assumption was that at some point a territory would become a state or be treated on some sort of equal footing.
It was a rather broad argument though could be a method of constitutional avoidance mixed in with an argument that Puerto Rico is special too in that it is more powerless (no representation in Congress except for a non-voting delegate). But, Sotomayor argued even rational basis failed.
I think the case was hard (see Ian Millhiser again), but would look at the regulation with a questioning eye all things considered. Thus, to use the jargon, at least apply rational basis with teeth. And, policy-wise, change the rule. Administratively, give the guy a waiver. Avoid hard cases when possible.
It seems like it was possible here.
===
There was also a separate press release announcing an upcoming celebration of Justice John Paul Stevens (who would have been 102 on 4/20) on May 2nd. Stevens regularly posted speeches on the Supreme Court speech page. Perhaps, in honor of his open government approach, the release notes the event (which will involve Garland, Stevens' granddaughter, and other notables) will be streamed via the website.
ETA: I also see a few more online links have been added.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!