SCOTUS: Odds and Ends

The "view from the Court" of the end of the term (since we don't get to see it) at SCOTUSBlog was posted on Saturday.  A high school student from what might be called the "junior variety" SCOTUSBlog did get in for an earlier case.  

[One thing noted is that Kagan very rarely dissents from the bench though she noted she liked the opportunity to do so again after COVID. I would like the right to see it.]

A long time ago, before this blog began, I went to the Court when visiting D.C.  It was in the summer and I basically remember none of it.  I really need one day to return.  

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on July 24, August 21, and September 8, 2023. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

There is a lot less going on during the summer though I'm sure some news will pop up and maybe some notable legal matter other than an execution.  But, we are assured of three summer order lists, which SCOTUSBlog itself for a while didn't even put on its calendar.  Come on now.  I know these things are rarely very notable, but it is still something to note.

===

The Supreme Court amongst its final orders GVR-ed (grant, vacate, remand) a case involving the right to not sell a wedding cake based on your religious beliefs.  A "GVR" is one of the main ways the Supreme Court uses to instantly apply recently decided cases.  The cases often are held until they deal with like cases and then cleaned off the board.  

This longstanding case (already reheard below after Masterpiece Cakeshop, which led the lower court to overturn damages alleged tainted by labeling religious beliefs "prejudice") likely will not be the only one to determine just how broad the wedding website case will be applied.  I don't think it will just be limited to its narrow facts.  There will be other "expressive" content and concerns about religious beliefs.  

The lower court here retained (for now) the holding that it is not illegitimate to require cake sellers not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  The lower court opinion shows the personal nature of this process.  A woman planned to marry a woman and went to a baker her own mother (with a conservative religious background but she changed her beliefs on gay and lesbian issues) used.  She was crushed when denied, being cited biblical commands that she felt treated her as an abomination.  

This was no feigned case from what I can tell.  It is an example of basic anti-discrimination law.  And, as Justice Sotomayor notes, speech does not suddenly alter its commands.  Religious grounds were alleged to prevent the integration of schools.  Are not schools very expressive?  Again, I do not begrudge the expressive nature of a wedding cake.  

The issue at hand, however, is status discrimination in public accommodation.  To be continued.  

==

There were noticeably fewer online sources cited in opinions this term. No audio or video file either. 

==

Prof. Melissa Murray was among the guests on Jen Psaki today and noted how the justices do not respect stare decisis.  Her podcast's slogan is "stare decisis is for suckers."  The 6-3 Court (at times doing it 5-4) has shown some "YOLO" (to also quote their podcast, Strict Scrutiny).  

I think we should be a bit hesitant to do without a qualifier sneer here.  I would think that if the voice of sane ever regained control of the Supreme Court that many would be quite upset if they simply retained certain bad precedents such as the Dobbs abortion ruling.  Are we just stuck with them?

There are moments in time when developments warrant a change of the law.  That is the nature of our judicial process, including popularly chosen judges.  The same people here often are not upset at the Warren Court overturning precedents.  

The devil is in the details.