SCOTUS Watch

Among the talk of leaks and other internal concerns, it has been noted that the Supreme Court has been lagging behind this term. This is not a Court that had to deal with the first year of COVID or has particularly broad docket as a historical matter. There were some notable shadow docket cases and some particularly notable cases (many not handed down).

Perhaps, that explains the lag time some. But, I have not seen any clear clarity on why before this week they have over half of their argued cases to hand down with less than a month left of the usual active term (that technically ends the day before the First Monday in October). Maybe, they need more justices.  Three or so, and you might have nine legitimate ones.

===

Anyway, before last week's Thursday Conference, an order was dropped agreeing with a Solicitor General's request to combine two cases. A briefing schedule was provided.  As a sort of prelude to another term chocked fill with important cases even at this early stage, the cases involve the constitutionality of activities of the Federal Trade Commission and the Security and Exchange Commission.  Such things continue split the justices ideologically.

===

Order List:  A grant involving the "Quiet Title Act" was symbolic of today's no drama Order List. 

===

Opinions:  We are getting less opinions, now at a slower rate, and Mr. Shadow Docket argues it isn't all good even with a bad Court.  At the start of the day, there was thirty-three opinions in argued cases left, which Amy "great SCOTUS resource" Howe helpfully breaks down.  

Three cases, nothing really notable, were handed down. A quirky case that dealt with constitutional rules regarding uniform bankruptcies was dealt with unanimously via Sotomayor.  Non-uniform rule blocked.  The opinion looks minimalist -- "uniform" not taken totally literally, but here it looks like the basic idea was that Congress itself created the problem it allegedly reasonably was addressing.   Brief opinion; some flexibility allowed. 

She dissented with Breyer in an Medicaid case (Gallardo), arguing the conservatives (and Kagan) were wrong to allow the state to go after some money.  This is one of those cases where I'm more concerned about the rule than the result since only experts really will be able to parse it.  Sotomayor might be right (the law tends to have enough flexibility so that you can pick your value choices), but Kagan joining suggests it is not too blatant.

Thomas writing the opinion meant the next opinion was Thomas, Roberts, or per curiam. Thomas for everyone (Barrett didn't take part) interpreted an arbitration case in a worker friendly way (Saxon).  One of various limited cases they are going to decide -- not everyone they hand down is crap.  

===

We will have one or more opinions Wednesday.  To remind, they don't show up, and this is wrong, especially since they can do so remotely (or provide audio/video) if desired.  Plus, past practice shows in person opinion announcements were seen as valuable.  Now, even in the heat of major cases, and when they had in person arguments, they don't show up.