SCOTUS: Order List (and Oral Arguments)

Light Order Day, with the usual complaint that the Supreme Court could be much more helpful with a FAQ and an easy way to link to the case docket pages. Sotomayor flagged an issue involving a means to challenge alleged civil liberty violations. 

Did not dissent from cert. denial. Again, a FAQ would helpfully summarize what it means when the Court does not take a case, basic recusal rules [a justice recused without comment], and odds and ends. For instance, references to certain rules regarding abusive complaints. A friendly Supreme Court can obtain useful positive p.r., which is rather useful.

Justices do not (publicly at least) pop up on social media accounts like Twitter/X. They regularly give speeches, have interviews, and so on. Justice Jackson posting the transcript of a speech was something not done since before Ginsburg died. Is the concern that posting a speech will be treated as "official" in some respect? Why did they set up that page at all?

The issue tangentially arose in two cases argued this week concerning the ability of public officials to block people on their social media accounts. The basic debate turned on if the account was "official" and how you determine that (an effects test?).  Also, is a disclaimer that an account is not public necessary? How much would it matter?

The issue arose without it being decided by the Supreme Court during the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration also uses social media. I think there is likely a right to block people as long as it is clearly not an official account. Disclaimer rules can be required there. Some sort of effects (how it operates) test is likely sensible. And, for fear of censorship, no "one strike and you are out" rule. Edge cases can be flagged, and discussed, and then the person will be aware of the rules.  

The first case argued this week involved what rule to use in an asset forfeiture case. This area has been controversial, with some concern coming from various sectors, for decades. The specific case is narrower. 

The case tomorrow will involve a trademark case involving political speech. Since I don't really discuss cases at the oral argument stage, I'll leave it there.  But, the government is in trouble, probably. Friday Conference and more orders/orals next week. 

ETA: Listening to the orals, not quite as sure about the result.