SCOTUS and Other Legal Stuff

Order List: After granting multiple cases for full review on Friday (and for whatever reason, still not releasing an opinion), the order list was only four pages long.  Nothing of note.  

Book Review: The Accidental History of the U.S. Immigration Courts is interesting.  The author is an immigration lawyer so knows the system. She is also an academic. 

She argues that "courts" that determine who should be granted the privilege to stay are wrongly found in the Justice Department.  She spells out the "accidental history" involving FDR and World War II how they were moved there from the Department of Labor.  And, she points out some attorney general overreaching during the Trump Administration.  

The book is not a complete account (the main text is around 170 pages), which is fine, but it in my opinion needed more on how the system worked from when it was first placed in the Department of Justice until the 1990s.  I can understand the principle of having what is in practice a judicial-type body in a more independent system.  But, I needed more evidence that the problem in practice was more than some Trump problems.  

What Are You Doing?!  We are approaching the hearing for the nominated chief judge, swing vote, of the New York Court of Appeals (top court).  

As noted before, Gov. Hochul really misstepped by picking a controversial pick with various conservative bona fides.  One letter from former state judges even spoke of "woke" opposition.  

The opposition so far in the Senate is promising, but we are a far way from it being enough. There is pressure, for instance, to have a floor vote.  This would allow Republicans to vote for him.  Among the noise now?  The minority leader of the House of Representatives.  Seriously dude? WTF?

Trivia: Steve Vladeck, Prof. Shadow Docket, has a Supreme Court blog or substack or whatever, that you can subscribe to (with some free content).  His recent entry talked about the death penalty, including how few cases before 1967 dealt with the death penalty in the 20th Century.  The entry noted two merit cases.

(There were a couple cases of note late 19th, including those involving the firing squad and electrocution).

One involving a teenage black boy whose electrocution failed the first time is well known.  I thought the second reference was to Trop v. Dulles, which was not a death penalty as such, but is an important case because it flagged (without dissent, including Brennan) that the death penalty is clearly constitutional.  

No. It's a case less known involving competency.  I am vaguely familiar with it since it is cited in the more well-known Ford v. Wainright case in the 1980s.  

===

There are a few oral arguments this week and other news might arise later on.  But, since we had a few things to talk about, decided to have this entry.