SCOTUS Order/Opinion Day

The Supreme Court had its first opinion announcements from the bench [we should get the audio eventually via Oyez.com after the term is over] since pre-COVID at the beginning of 2020.  

In a good system, we would not have to wait  Ditto to watch ceremonial events like a bunch of JAG personnel being on hand to be involved in bar admissions.  Instead, we have a SCOTUSBlog live blog, which provided some details for this post. 

It is also the first time Barrett had an opinion announcement.  The first case of the term is usually boring (this time: "exception to a deadline for veterans' benefits is subject to equitable tolling"), but usually comes out before now.  Why this one, first heard on 10/4, took this long is unclear.  The whole thing is eleven pages though for some reason needs three pages of headnotes.  

The other "opinion" was an unexplained statement that a case involving attorney-client privilege was improvidentially granted. In the past, I have found at least brief descriptions saying why the case turned out to be a mistake to take.  During the Roberts Court, however, no comment. 

The Order List is also not too notable. An important Internet-related case stood out because the Supreme Court asked the opinion of the Solicitor General.  The general assumption here is that this is a delay mechanism.  

Gorsuch dissented from a cert denial, involving civil penalties imposed under the Bank Secrecy Act for wilful non-disclosure of taxes.  Gorsuch made sure to lead that it involved some old lady who was a refugee from Germany and suggested it was all some innocent mistake on her part.  The feds suggest otherwise.  I don't think this is a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause.  If wanted to take such as case, there are more blatant examples.  I personally did not find the merits of the last case that bad.*

Amy Howe (SCOTUSBlog) notes that she was told that Kagan, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito weren't on the bench.  I do not find this too problematic unless technically they did something (swearing in people?) requiring a quorum (six).  I think it would have been good practice for the first time back with an opinion announcement to have more there.  

They had one actual opinion to release.  It is unclear why they couldn't do it last week.  The people absent are somewhat suggestive though it does include Kagan.  Were they worried about some protest arising from last week's report or the Roe v. Wade anniversary?  Have something else to do?  To be clear, justices often skip these things since they are basically ceremonial.  Amy Howe suggested this many not being there was somewhat notable.  Again, basically, a shrug on some level though some people were insulted by the whole thing.  

SCOTUS now goes on a mid-winter hiatus until mid-February.  There is nothing scheduled officially until then.  There will likely be miscellaneous orders and the like, including those involving pending February executions.  

(After finishing this entry, I noticed there are multiple new media advisories -- one of many underused pages on its website -- about assigned seating for upcoming oral arguments that are particularly likely to receive attention.) 

---

* The case's primary importance was to clearly incorporate the fines provision -- which most people figured was already in effect -- to the states.  I questioned at the time if seizing an expensive vehicle, which as I recall was even somehow used for the drug transactions targeted, was an excessive fine. 

A 1990s case involving an innocent wife who lost a small amount of money when a car she co-owned was seized -- her husband used it to have sex with a prostitute -- is much more unfair in my book.