Order List
Two things stood out for me in a four-page order list. As Rick Hasen summarized on Bluesky:
The Supreme Court won't hear the case where a lower court temporarily stopped Texas from using its re-redistricted congressional maps. The Supreme Court just reversed that order without hearing argument or getting more briefs.
The liberals dissented (without opinion). There is a story here. We have another reversal, based on a short per curiam, of a 160-page or whatever district court opinion on the shadow docket.
Steve Vladeck is on the case, not having patronizing conservatives referencing the "hysteria" over the question. Wow. Breyer says all is well. An accommodationist who is loath to criticize. I think his replacement is more on the money.
(Vladeck, after the voting rights decision, wrote a partially paywalled piece on reforming the Supreme Court. He opposes court expansion.)
Meanwhile, quoting Chris Geidner, they also granted another case:
SCOTUS grants another post-Jarkesy case about administrative agencies’ adjudicative powers, involving the Labor Department.
The liberals didn't like Jarkesy, but some left-leaning sorts thought it was correct to require additional usage of the federal courts. So, it's not a crystal-clear issue.
Arguments
The Supreme Court then spent two hours (too long) talking about "geofence" warrants. Sounds like a tricky case that they will try to rule on narrowly. OTOH, maybe it's too soon to judge.
The other notable oral argument (for me) is a late addition involving Trump's immigration policy. And with that, the oral arguments are likely done.
Now, they will get to opinion writing, probably finishing by the end of June for their summer baseball camp plans or whatever they want to do. We will also likely see if Alito really is going to stay on.
Opinions
Rick Hasen (Election Law guy) is EXTREMELY concerned about a big 6-3 (Alito v. Kagan) voting rights case handed down. It is "one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century." He's not one to exaggerate.
Kagan's concern is suggested by her dissent from the bench. Since we don't have audio (Oyez.com will provide it eventually after the term is over) or video, we can just read about both Alito (longer than usual) and Kagan's bench statements.
Congress could, and eventually should, pass a new voting rights law. They have done so in the past in response to statutory construction. The current executive and legislature are not likely to do so.
I think Congress should have a fast-track process to address Court rulings regarding federal statutes. The 6-3 Supreme Court might then flag an alleged constitutional barrier to the legislation.
This is where court reform comes in. You have ethics reform, tweaking qualified immunity, term limits, and so forth. Various good policies on their own.
A constitutional decision like Shelby v. Holder sometimes can be addressed (e.g., update the process there deemed out of date). Other times, you will run into a roadblock, like the Trump v. U.S. ruling.
Some want to expand the Supreme Court. Others worry this will result in tit-for-tat responses and overall diminish the Court.
Hardball will make for tough decisions at some point, including jurisdiction stripping and targeting their budget (minus reduction in salaries, which the Constitution prohibits). After all, if you use the budget to "blackmail" (pressure) the Court, does that not have some potential at threatening its integrity?
I think we should put everything on the table. Reform will be tough. Serious reform, whatever it entails, might require ending the filibuster. Whenever bad opinions, especially ones with political/partisan valence like this one, arise, this talk does as well.
A trifecta is necessary. Let's start thinking. Meanwhile, jockeying by both sides in a districting race to the bottom continues.
==
The first opinion was unanimous. The result in a future case could help liberals or conservatives. It involved the investigation of crisis pregnancy centers.
Maybe it was the right decision, and it wasn't on the merits, though judges below disagreed. Was it that obvious? Shrugs. More on the background here.
Executions
James Garfield Broadnax was nineteen when he was part of the robbery/murder of two people in 2008. Texas executed him.
No comment by SCOTUS when rejecting the final appeals. The whole thing seems arbitrary.
(A few judges have shown some concern about executing people under 21. The line now is eighteen.)
Florida executed someone sentenced to die for the rape/murder of his teenage step-niece, committed in 1976. James Hitchcock is not someone many will have sympathy for. It still is patently ridiculous to execute someone after 50 years.
Florida is making a habit of this, though, even for them, 50 years is longer than most. As usual, I cite Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross on this issue.
Since only a few justices over the years, none on the Court now, flagged that problem, his final appeals rested on other claims. His lawyers, yet again, raised a claim that the Florida lethal injection process is flawed.
Also, they again raise an innocence claim. It isn't new, so hard to see it working at this late date. He claims his brother did it. I doubt it. The time lag is my issue.
He committed horrible crimes. He was in prison for fifty years. Some members of the victim's family will obtain closure. That is a variable thing, and anyway, not enough to justify a few arbitrary executions.
A long prison term might also have led some to have closure. A lingering execution might have hindered the process as they waited a bit more time for it to happen.
Upcoming
No more oral arguments.
There will be releases of orders (Monday) and non-argument sessions (often admission of bar members, but some opinion days might be mixed in) and conferences (Thursdays) until the end of June. At least, after a ten-day break after Monday (orders).
(Memorial Day pushes one order day to Tuesday.)
There will also be various other days with orders and opinions, especially as things speed up in June. And probably a surprise or two mixed in. So, it goes.