[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.
~ ~ ~
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.
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.