Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Final Day* of Term Edition

/62 Comments/in , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

It’s the last day* Supreme Court’s term, and the last batch of decisions will drop shortly

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

*–No, it’s not the final day after all, but this post was written as a pre-scheduled draft back on June 25 and my psychic powers predicting how many cases would drop on which dates was at an ebb.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

One of the great tragedies of the red states’ push to ban abortion as reproductive care has been the threats to and loss of doctors and other health care workers who provide reproductive health services. If health care professionals are at risk of prosecution in red states for providing what may be essential lifesaving care, they are often electing to leave and practice elsewhere. With the loss of health care professionals due to the COVID pandemic, they won’t have difficulty finding a new place to practice even if it may not feel like the home they leave behind.

Health care professional Rory Cole wrote an op-ed about Idaho which was affected by SCOTUS’s handling of the Moyle v. Idaho case. Worth a read because her opinion is surely shared by other health care professionals in states like Texas and Florida.

I’m staying in Idaho to practice medicine after the U.S. Supreme Court’s EMTALA decision

~ ~ ~

Today’s decisions —

First decision: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent which she opened by noting, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”

Grants Pass banned public camping — which really banned homeless persons from sleeping in public. What a piece of shit decision relying on the Eighth Amendment to punish the homeless.

As noted all too often about the so-called conservatives: the cruelty is the point.

Second decision: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Justice Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Kagan wrote the dissent. The court split along ideological lines as expected.

This case essentially undermines the unanimous Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) decision upon which federal agencies have relied for decades.

This is yet another swipe at the administrative state by the Roberts court and yet more evidence each of the recent GOP-appointed justices lied during their nomination hearings if they affirmed stare decisis. They are writing law from the bench.

Third decision: Fischer v. United States

Justice Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision; oddly, Justice Brown Jackson concurred. Justice Coney Barrett wrote the dissent joined by justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

This is the January 6 case in which accused insurrectionists were charged with 18 USC 1512(c); the majority narrowed the scope of the charge to impairment of record, document, or other objects in official proceedings. Aggravatingly, this appears to place focus on 18 USC 1512(c)(1) and not 18 USC 1512(c)(2) as you can see from the code itself:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

IANAL but this makes no sense to me because the entire point of the attack on the capitol was to obstruct the counting of votes and alter the outcome of the election’s certification.

~ ~ ~

This is an open thread. Any further updates related to these cases will appear at the bottom of this post.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Thursday Edition [UPDATE-1]

/83 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

This is the penultimate day of the Supreme Court’s term ending on June 28; a few more decisions today with the remainder tomorrow Friday, the last day of the term.

Decisions released today will follow below. Unfortunately I need to be away from my desk for a while this morning; I may not post the decisions promptly after 10:00 a.m. ET but I will do so as soon as I can get to my desk.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

SCOTUS taking up gender-affirming care of transgender children:

The court agreed Monday to hear the Biden administration’s challenge to a Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, an increasingly potent political issue that has divided lower courts and emerged as a leading front in the battle over LGBTQ issues.

This is going to be as messy as other decisions like those about gun and reproductive rights.

This one will likely go 5-4 with conservatives in majority, none of whom will give a shit about the children’s sentiments.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 10:40 A.M. — Today’s decisions —

First decision: Ohio v. EPA

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 5-4 decision; Justice Barrett wrote the dissent, siding with the liberals on this case related to the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule.

Second decision: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Justice Gorsuch also wrote this 5-4 decision; Justice Kavanaugh wrote the dissent with what seems an odd combination of Kagan, Roberts, and Sotomayor.

This was about the bankrupt maker of prescription pain-killer Oxycontin and the release of claims.

Third decision: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent. The case centered on a hedge fund manager’s fraud and their Seventh Amendment right to a trial.

Fourth decision: Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States (consolidated)

As expected after yesterday’s accidental leak of the decision, SCOTUS dismissed the emergency abortion case.

~ ~ ~

Updates with news related to the SCOTUS decisions today will appear at the bottom of this post. This is an open thread.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Wednesday Edition [UPDATE-2]

/91 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. Updates appear at the bottom of this post. /~Rayne]

Yet again a week later we’re still counting down to the Supreme Court’s term ending on June 28; SCOTUS delivers a few more decisions today with the remainder spread across tomorrow Thursday, and Friday the last day of the term.

Once more we ask: will SCOTUS finally decide the question of presidential immunity posed in Trump v. United States? Or will we not see a decision until tomorrow or Friday?

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

Trump’s case for presidential immunity was the first sub-topic when I searched Google News for “supreme court.” Apparently corporate news media is concerned about this and willing to invest a little human capital about it.

This, however, is just plain disturbing. Who knew House Speaker Mike Johnson would be a minion for that dirtbag Bannon after Bannon refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena? Doesn’t Johnson expect persons his Congress might subpoena to comply?

~ ~ ~

Today’s decisions —

First decision: Murthy v. Missouri

Justice Coney Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Alito wrote the dissent.

This is the First Amendment case about the Biden administration’s efforts to stem disinformation on social media. The states and individual plaintiffs were found to lack standing and the Fifth Circuit erred in lumping the states and the plaintiffs together. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is reversed.

A little statistical analysis:

“Vaccine” and “vaccines” appear (65) times in total in the decision and dissent.

“Misinformation” appears (91) times.

“Disinformation” appears (3) times and not at all in the dissent.

“Ivermectin” does not appear at all.

Second decision: Snyder v. United States

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the 6-3 decision; Justice Brown Jackson wrote the dissent.

In essence this was a case about public corruption; is an amount of money paid to a public official after goods/services have been rendered a bribe or a gratuity if there’s no quid pro quo?

You’ll be shocked, SHOCKED at which way the GOP-appointed jurists went.

Third decision: That’s it, there isn’t a third one today, and definitely not a presidential immunity decision.

~ ~ ~

Updates with news related to the SCOTUS decisions today will appear at the bottom of this post. This is an open thread.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 1:15 P.M. —

Bloomberg got the scoop on a decision which wasn’t released today: Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho

Kimberly Robinson who is on Bloomberg’s byline, posted this on the dead bird app:

Kimberly Robinson @KimberlyRobinsn

BREAKING: #SCOTUS inadvertently released its opinion in EMTALA abortion case earlier this morning. The Justices are poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho, suggesting the Court shouldn’t have gotten involved in the early litigation.

12:49 PM · Jun 26, 2024

Bloomberg’s article is paywalled; you can read similar coverage at The Guardian: US supreme court set to allow emergency abortions in Idaho – report

So…is this accidental leak a head fake of some sort? A means to relieve pressure? Will it come up in the presidential debate if the decision isn’t formally released until Friday?

(h/t community member c-i-v-i-l for the heads up)

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-2 — 6:10 P.M. —

The Washington Post has a story now about the briefly posted decision in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States. The decision was accidentally published ahead of schedule and quickly removed from SCOTUS’s website, but not before a copy was obtained.

I’m not going to elaborate on this now because it’s not formally a decision until it is published. When it finally is, it’s going to be a must-read based on the concurrences — the tea leaves to be read ahead of future cases about reproductive health care.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Friday Edition [UPDATE-1]

/97 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

We’re still counting down to the Supreme Court’s term ending on June 28; SCOTUS delivers a few more decisions today of the remaining 18 cases they’ve heard. Looks like there will be more than four issued.

Yet again we ask: will SCOTUS finally decide the question of presidential immunity posed in Trump v. United States? Perhaps it’s not even a question of whether today or not we’ll see a decision.

What’s your Magic 8-Ball say: YES the court will decide this month, or NO the court’s conservatives are going to drag this into the next term to give Trump an assist.

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

Leah Litman’s op-ed in the NYT which I linked yesterday must have hit a nerve. There are more op-eds about the challenges the Roberts’ Supreme Court poses, undermining its legitimacy through acceptance of corrupt behavior and the appearance of partisanship.

This one from The Daily Beast neatly encapsulates the problems: Supreme Court Sends Out an Ominous Sign

And this one in the Los Angeles Times suggests conservatives are worried about the public’s perception, so worried they need to assure us things aren’t as bad as the appear: Column: The Supreme Court’s role in our partisan polarization has been greatly exaggerated

As we should give the columnist, Jonah fucking Goldberg, the time of day. Contrast and compare his Wikipedia and Sourcewatch entries if you’re not familiar with his work.

I’d rather take the word of a conservative former Supreme Court clerk about this problematic Supreme Court.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — Today’s decisions:
First decision: Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

Justice Jackson wrote the 5-4 decision; Justice Gorsuch dissented. In this case regarding a dispute over water rights to the Rio Grande and Elephant Butte between states Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico, Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Second decision: Department of State v. Muñoz

Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision with a concurrence by Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent. In question was denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen.

Third decision: Erlinger v. United States

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Roberts and Thomas offering concurring opinions. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent joined by Alito; Jackson also joined excepting Part III. Jackson filed a dissenting opinion.

This case was about the Armed Career Criminal Act and how a court determines the mandatory sentencing to be applied. It’s worth reading Jackson’s dissent given her background as the only SCOTUS jurist who served as a public defender.

Fourth decision: Smith v. Arizona

Justice Kagan wrote the court’s opinion. There were no dissents, but:

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR,
KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS
and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, and IV. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed opinions concurring in part. ALITO, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.

Okay, then.

This was about a drugs and paraphernalia possession case and the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. IIRC it’s also the third case in the last two days in which expert(s) testimony was key; this issue might be worth watching more closely as it may be an evolving topic.

Fifth decision: United States v. Rahimi

Chief Justice Roberts offered the 8-1 decision; there were multiple concurrences. Thomas wrote the dissent.

Of course Thomas did.

This was a Second Amendment case regarding a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by those under domestic-violence restraining orders. Thomas apparently believes an abuser’s right to bear arms is more important than a domestic partner’s right to life.

Sure would like to know if there are any financial links between the gun lobby and Thomas considering his consistency on guns.

~ ~ ~

A big gun rights case but still no presidential immunity decision. Will SCOTUS dump all the biggest cases at once in order to dampen the effect of each individual case, including Trump v. United States?

The next batch of SCOTUS decisions will be handed down next Wednesday, June 26.

Updates regarding today’s decisions and other SCOTUS-related news will follow at the bottom of this post. This is an open thread.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions [UPDATE-1]

/145 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

As noted the last two weeks, the end of the Supreme Court’s term is just ahead; SCOTUS continues to dump clusters of decisions in a short time frame.

Will SCOTUS finally decide the question of presidential immunity posed in Trump v. United States? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s.

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

1 — Stink: The New York Times published an op-ed yesterday by University of Michigan’s Prof. Leah Litman, a former clerk for retired Justice Anthony Kennedy: Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case, which Election Law Blog’s Rick Hasen helpfully excerpts here.

It sure looks fishy that the conservative majority SCOTUS can make a decision inside three weeks related to COVID vaccinations for the benefit of corporations, but drags its feet for months about presidential immunity though United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) already offers plenty of guidance on the latter.

(It looks fashy, too.)

2 — Head fake? There’s been considerable coverage of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrent opinion in the “Trump Too Small” trademark decision, Vidal v. Elster. See The New Republic’s Amy Coney Barrett Breaks With Supreme Court Originalists and Politico’s Amy Coney Barrett may be poised to split conservatives on the Supreme Court.

That’s all well and good but Coney Barrett remained one of the majority in the 5-4 decision; she’s still a conservative vote differing only in how she gets there — with or without Thomas’s brand of originalism.

3 — Unbenched: One of the cases SCOTUS is expected to decide yet this term — City of Grants Pass v. Johnson — addresses municipalities prohibiting the homeless from sleeping in public spaces. What are homeless folks supposed to do if SCOTUS allows municipalities to continue with such prohibitions while housing inventory remains excessively tight and rents unfettered?

This case has haunted me this week during the heat dome much of the country has been experiencing. Imagine being unable to find a cool place to sleep at night — not even a park bench.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 10:25 AM — Today’s decisions:

First decision: Moore v. United States

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the 7-2 majority decision which upheld the retroactive tax assessed on repatriated income under Trump’s 2017 tax law changes. Suck on that “Trump Too Small” tax cut, MAGA.

That ethics-deprived jerk Alito refused to recuse himself on this one in spite of having been interviewed about the case by one of the lawyers involved.

Second decision: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio

Justice Kagan wrote the 6-3 majority decision for this case regarding malicious prosecution and probable cause.

Third decision: Diaz v. United States

Justice Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion which surprisingly included Brown Jackson in the majority and with a concurring opinion; the dissent was written by Gorsuch with Sotomayor and Kagan joining him.

I feel so bad for Diaz whose wretched taste in men was revealed by her foolishness in this case. I wonder if her sentence was shorter or longer than the amount of time she was romantically linked to her boyfriend.

Fourth decision: Gonzalez v. Trevino

This was a per curiam decision, read by Roberts; Alito wrote a concurrence, with Thomas the lone dissent.

This one probably deserves more attention considering the case concerns the effort to remove an elected official.

~ ~ ~

Any further updates regarding these cases and SCOTUS will follow at the bottom of this post. This is an open thread.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Friday Edition

/67 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

SCOTUS will dump a second cluster of decisions this week at 10:00 a.m. this morning. As in the past, there’s no clue as to which cases have been decided, including Trump’s presidential immunity case.

Decisions released today to follow in an update and will appear at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observation:

Clarence Thomas is a lying mothertrucker who lies

Oh, oops, he just kind of forgot to tell the American people his rich white daddy bought him some trips.

Details of the private jet flights between 2017 and 2021 were obtained as part of an investigation the committee has been conducting into reports of lavish undisclosed travel and perks provided to justices by Crow and other wealthy benefactors that have sparked calls for reform.

Crow released the information after the committee issued subpoenas in November for him and conservative activist Leonard Leo to provide information to the body. The subpoenas have never been enforced.

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/13/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-travel/

Mothertrucker needs to step down but you know he thinks he’s entitled because he’s been bought and paid for.

~ ~ ~

Three decisions today, none of which are about presidential immunity.

First decision: U.S. Trustee v. Hammons

Justice Jackson wrote the 6-3 majority opinion concerning bankruptcy. Several dozen Chapter 11 bankruptcies were charged higher fees when their cases were moved to a different judicial district.

Second decision: Campos-Chavez v. Garland

Justice Alito wrote the 5-4 majority opinion with Jackson writing the dissent. The case was centered on immigration and the notification issued to Campos-Chavez related to subsequent removal order.

Third decision: Garland v. Cargill

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion with Sotomayor writing the dissent. The case concerned bump-stocks on guns and their definition as “machinegun” which are regulated by ATF.

~ ~ ~

Suspense escalates about the presidential immunity case.

Watch this space for updates related to the decisions above or other developments related to the SCOTUS jurists.

Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions

/62 Comments/in /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

The end of the Supreme Court’s term is just ahead, which means SCOTUS will be dumping a bunch of decisions in a short time frame.

Decisions released today:

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.
Unanimous decision with Justice Sotomayor writing the opinion.

Justice Alito recused from this decision — why did he recuse from this case about insurance and bankruptcy, but not about any cases related to prosecution of January 6 including the Trump immunity case?

Connelly v. United States
Unanimous decision with Justice Thomas writing the opinion.

Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe
This was an ideologically messy split decision: Chief Justice Roberts, wrote the opinion, joined by Gorsuch. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson signed as well.

Conservative justices were in the minority with Kavanaugh writing the dissent, joined by Coney Barrett, Alito, and Thomas.

Here is a Native American perspective by the Coalition of Large Tribes published in March when the case was argued.

~ ~ ~

Obviously Trump’s immunity case, Trump v. United States, is still pending along with at least 27 other cases.

Additional updates may follow.

Thomas, Alito and Christmas Cookies

/220 Comments/in , , /by

You have heard about the private jet and yacht trips given to Clarence Thomas, the jet trips given to Samuel Alito, etc. The stories of this type of absolute impropriety are seemingly endless.

Senior Massachusetts District Judge Michael Ponsor has penned an op-ed in today’s New York Times: in which he discuses the acceptable limits of what federal judges can take as grift. It is quite good and not very long, I’d suggest a read of it.

What has gone wrong with the Supreme Court’s sense of smell?

I joined the federal bench in 1984, some years before any of the justices currently on the Supreme Court. Throughout my career, I have been bound and guided by a written code of conduct, backed by a committee of colleagues I can call on for advice. In fact, I checked with a member of that committee before writing this essay.
….
The recent descriptions of the behavior of some of our justices and particularly their attempts to defend their conduct have not just raised my eyebrows; they’ve raised the whole top of my head. Lavish, no-cost vacations? Hypertechnical arguments about how a free private airplane flight is a kind of facility? A justice’s spouse prominently involved in advocating on issues before the court without the justice’s recusal? Repeated omissions in mandatory financial disclosure statements brushed under the rug as inadvertent? A justice’s taxpayer-financed staff reportedly helping to promote her books? Private school tuition for a justice’s family member covered by a wealthy benefactor? Wow.

This is FAR beyond “the appearance of impropriety”, it is actual impropriety. Any judge and/or lawyer with even an ounce of ethics knows this, and it is patently obvious. It is wrong.

Let me give you an analogy that demonstrates how absurd Thomas and Alito really are.

Many, many years ago, a junior partner in our firm decided to be nice to the local county level judges we practiced in front of. So she got a bunch of boxes of Christmas cookies from a local custom cookie place and tried to deliver them to the pertinent judges for Christmas.They were just local superior court judges, not SCOTUS level. They turned them down, and there were a bunch of cookies suddenly in our kitchen and lounge.

There were a lot of attorneys, including me, both prosecution and defense, that used to drink at a local downtown dive bar after 5 pm. Judges, both federal and state, came in too. The lawyers always swapped rounds. But not the judges, they always paid for their own.

Nobody in the world would have carped about it if the judges would have eaten the cookies, nor had the judges gotten a free drink. They just did not. It was pretty admirable.

And now, when such things should be far more apparent, we have a Supreme Court that thinks they are entitled to the graft and grift. Do I think that makes them “corrupt” per se? I do not know that, we shall see how it all plays out further.

image_print