SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Other Stuff

Order List 

SCOTUS is now working on opinions without needing to worry about oral arguments. They don't even have a scheduled conference this week. An opinion day has been scheduled for May 9th. 

Monday's Order List [none scheduled next Monday] was six pages and no drama. They did drop four more grants (clearing away some relists in the process). There are some interesting facts, including medicinal marijuana and pet food. But, we are not talking about "hot button" cases.  

The full court now also denied Peter Navarro’s request for release pending appeal. The former Trump adviser is serving his four-month sentence for his conviction of contempt of Congress.

Gorsuch (without explanation) did not take part in one of the cases denied full review. Only the liberal justices deign to tell us why.

Miscellaneous Orders 

There are scheduled order lists that provide numerous specific orders. A list of orders = Order List. The Supreme Court also hands down separate orders or miscellaneous stand-alone orders. 

Sexual Explicit Online Material

SCOTUS denies a stay of the Fifth Circuit's decision allowing Texas's H.B. 1181's age-verification requirements to go into effect in part. 

The law also requires disclaimers such as:

Pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses and weakens brain function.

That portion of the law is blocked for now. So, we are concerned about the age verification portion. Pornhub, the online pornography website, is involved here. They disabled access in Texas during the litigation. The link to the docket page shows Pornhub is not the only group involved. 

Chris Geidner, the SCOTUS reporter, argues that the 5th Cir. misapplied Supreme Court precedent. As usual, SCOTUS was silent about why they acted as they did. 

Shrinking Docket 

The shrinking SCOTUS docket has been an issue for years. It is even smaller these days. For some reason, the Court is taking longer this term to hand down the under sixty opinions they did take. OTOH, there are a lot of hot-button cases. Plus, they have public appearances and a variety of summer projects. 

The reasons are unclear but probably mixed. People have various responses, including wanting them to do more work. For instance, Stephen Vladeck wants more mandatory appeals. Others say, "these people?" 

The expansion of the Supreme Court is not really about caseload. Some latch on to the number of circuits (twelve regular and a few specialty ones). But, justices don't "circuit ride" these days. They have limited work overseeing the circuits though we can forsee giving them more.

The article supplies the interesting tidbit that Alito and Gorsuch (an idiosyncratic sort) are the only justices now not part of the "cert pool" that divides deciding what cases to take. 

Alito is a somewhat curious outlier since traditionally the cert pool was a conservative thing. Perhaps, as a FOX News ideologue, he wants to flag some more cases. 

Upcoming

The Supreme Court will be back on track with a scheduled conference next Thursday. 

Thursday will also be a decision day. We might have this as a semi-normal event since we have around forty cases to dispose of by the end of June.  

The next execution is scheduled for the end of the month.

I have read Ronald Dworkin, a legal philosopher, over the years. I first read him in the 1990s. He has some academic stuff that is hard to read. His Freedom's Law collection provides some more approachable essays. 

He gave a lot of responsibility to judges. Dworkin argued that "democracy" involves people having broad individual sovereignty to make personal decisions. Therefore, taking certain powers from the government is appropriate. He argued the courts are the best institution to decide many of these questions. How would he have approached things with this Supreme Court?

Life's Dominion is a 1990s book about abortion and euthanasia. I re-read it. It's a mix of philosophical drudge, some interesting insights, and some questionable assumptions. It also mixes in some of those annoying mistakes (e.g., the majority opinion of Griswold is what "one" person said) that somehow remain after editing and repeated pre-publication reads. 

Dworkin argues that the median position is that people respect the intrinsic value of life in different ways. We should have the right to choose our own path here, which amounts to a type of religious decision. The same applies to end-of-life decision-making. Our decisions there factor in our overall view of our life's meaning. The discussion mixes in some philosophizing that at some points caused my eyes to glaze over a bit.*

I share the sentiment that religious liberty is a central focus, even if it often is not seen that way on the pro-choice side. Planned Parenthood v. Casey referenced the choice as a matter of conscience. The focus of the book emphasizes this angle along with privacy overall. 

The fact a particularly noisy group on the pro-choice side speaks of a "bundle of cells" without any reason for us to care is not mentioned. Also, some see forced pregnancy as a form of slavery (which he did mention in passing and then bounced back to his theme) which is more important to them than making conscientious choices.  

But, I think he has a point. The average pro-choice person probably does understand a pregnancy as a development of life. They do not merely think of an embryo as some cells. They put it all in perspective, factoring in overall questions about their life, the lives of others, and the potential of life in the future. Some women in particular demand autonomy because of their own specific role in making choices about the entity inside them.

Only the last two chapters involve euthanasia specifically and one focuses on those who are in dementia. There are more Supreme Court cases involving abortion. The Cruzan case did occur by the time the book was published; it is only thinly discussed. The family's lawyer wrote a good book about the case, which provides some personal details. 

The book is a mixed bag but worthwhile overall.

---

* The book uses two language norms that are annoying.

He uses the universal male pronoun, even while discussing an incident involving a woman in the euthanasia section. A book on abortion specifically should not do that.

He also uses the standard "fetus," even though a majority of abortions occur before that period of development. A "fetus" also implies a more developed entity, often largely formed (perhaps past viability). When many people think "fetus," they visualize something that helps the anti-abortion side.

Some battles involve "abortions" that are not even abortions since there is no fertilized egg. More recent science (as compared to even references by pro-choice people; see, e.g., the Webster case in 1989) shows "morning after" type pills generally occur before fertilization. 

Either way, some use "abortion" even earlier than the embryo stage. Word usage matters.