The weekly Order List had some interesting bits.
The justices decided the appeals court wrongly decided on procedural grounds a lawsuit involving the free speech rights of immigration judges (not Art. III judges). Thomas (with Barrett) also disagreed on the merits. Free speech fails, for now.
[The backstory is that the administrative process was broken because of Trump's obstructionism. Helped b by the court conservatives. The lower court tried a workaround and was called out.]
The justices, following standard practices since at least the 1970s, rejected even accepting a "bill of complaint" involving a dispute among states.
Thomas (with Alito) took their usual stance (reasonable) that they should at least examine the merits. They also added some right-wing comments on the merits of a dispute involving undocumented people having driver's licenses.
Kavanaugh would have taken a dispute involving arbitration (New York Football Giants v. Brian Flores). He didn't comment on why.
Alito and Thomas would have summarily reversed a lower court opinion involving excessive force and the Fourth Amendment. They cited a lower court opinion they "essentially" agreed with.
Alito (no comment), Kagan, and Jackson (referencing ethical guidelines) did not take part in deciding three cases. I continue to prefer the latter approach.
Finally, in a "to be continued" sort of way, a lower court continued to reject a redistricting map, holding it is racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court, with the liberals dissenting, sent it back.
It is likely to come back.
==
Meanwhile, this is an interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's relation with social media, including suggestions on how it can dip its toes in.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!