SCOTUS Watch: Orders

Texas Restricting

I started this blog in the middle of the first Bush43 Administration. Various shenanigans going on now, including mid-decade redistricting to obtain partisan ends, went on back then, too. A feeling of deja vu.

A 2-1 Fifth Circuit opinion provided a surprising win for the Democrats when the mid-decade Texas redistricting (which led to a retaliatory California effort) was struck down as an illegitimate racial gerrymander. Trump Administration shenanigans were involved. Their incompetence strikes again. 

The Supreme Court earlier held that political gerrymanders are non-justiciable in federal court. The Rucho opinion ended a 4-4-1 stalemate where conservatives wanted to prohibit such appeals and liberals tried to get Kennedy to agree to join them the other way. Kennedy, while not giving a firm "no," never gave them that fifth vote. 

The Supreme Court left such appeals open in the 1980s. I don't know how much the federal courts actually restrained the process. 

I am not aware of any SCOTUS case that struck down a partisan gerrymander (racial gerrymanders were found). The blog discussions against Rucho tend to skip over that part. Not saying Rucho was meaningless. Curious how much it changed things.

There was a very unhinged (and somewhat counterproductive) dissent to the court of appeals opinion. Justice Alito on Friday granted Texas an "administrative stay" on Friday and sped up the briefing. A response is required by 5p.m. today. 

Never-ending drama.

Order List 

Today's Order List is the last thing scheduled until the beginning of December. It had some interesting bits.

As Chris Geidner noted on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court grants no new cases for merits review in today’s orders list, but it does summarily reverse two lower court rulings in criminal cases—one holding a constitutional error in a Mississippi trial, the other holding the Fourth Circuit improperly ordered a new trial in a Maryland case.

The Mississippi case struck down as unconstitutional a law providing a blanket ability to screen child witnesses. A split SCOTUS opinion earlier upheld the practice, but held it must be "case specific." The Court, in a five-page opinion, left open the possibility that the screen would be harmless error in this case.

The case first came last spring and was distributed to multiple conferences. This suggests some concern. I think the case should have been accepted for full review and oral argument.

The Court also (again) refused to take a case to reconsider the Feres doctrine regarding immunity regarding certain military claims. 

Gorsuch would have taken it. Thomas again wrote to explain why he thinks so, too. Sotomayor is sympathetic but argues that stare decisis warrants leaving it to Congress to fix. She makes a good case. 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Only Kagan and Jackson (and somewhat inconsistently Sotomayor) deign to explain why they recuse.

===

The justices will hold oral arguments in the first two weeks of December. 

Then, there is an Order List scheduled for 12/15. That is the last thing scheduled for 2025. 

Other stuff is likely to drop.

ETA: A reference in my daily SCOTUSblog email warrants an addendum.

plainly, courts “call balls and strikes”; they don’t get a turn at bat

The second criminal per curium given short shrift in my comments drops a "balls and strike" reference. 

The lower court explained how the Supreme Court allowed them to raise a problem with a trial that was not cited by the petitioners. So, it is unclear whether the justices were right to call them out here. 

But, overall, the justices don't just call balls and strikes. The Supreme Court repeatedly gets a turn at bat, including changing the questions raised by the lawyers for appeal. 

They also have a lot of power over the batters, including who will get a time at bat, when they will get a time at bat, and what they should do there.

The per curiam quotes an earlier opinion (by Kagan):

In line with our duty to call balls and strikes, we granted certiorari to resolve the split, 589 U. S. ___ (2019), and we now affirm.

Do umpires generally "call balls and strikes" by settling nationwide disagreements on strike calls via official statements of what the rules are?

Meanwhile, here's some more (from me) on judicial review, one of some new essays on that website. 

SCOTUS Order List

There are three basic things about today's Order List.

Kim Davis: Denied

Kim Davis's case was rejected without comment, even though some attention was given to it as if there was a real chance it would be used to overturn same sex marriage. Lots of people, including Mark Joseph Stern (gay, married, strongly anti-SCOTUS), were like "duh." See also, Chris Geidner (gay). 

As Steven Vladeck previously noted (linked here):

Third, there was a surge in media discussion about the pending cert. petition by Kim Davis, and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling recognizing constitutional protection for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. (The surge seems to have been caused by the fact that the Court ordered the respondents to file a response to Davis’s cert. petition after they had waived their right to file such a brief. But such a move requires a request from only a single justice, and is in no way predictive of a grant of certiorari.)

This was one of those cases where a juicy-sounding case was on the docket, and too much attention was given. For instance, the Supreme Court doesn't grant a case, and a report suggests they decided the merits of the issue.

I am not going to disdain the average person being concerned here. The stakes are high, and people have a thin understanding of things. People aren't experts here. It's a learning opportunity. Anyway, hopefully, we are done with Kim Davis, who has been around for years. I have my doubts. 

Election Case Taken 

The Supreme Court granted review in a case for which the Fifth Circuit opinion was deemed "bonkers." 

The general idea appears to be that this was a "too much for the conservatives, at least two to three of them" Fifth Circuit ruling.  

Alito, Gorsuch, and Jackson did not take part in a case each. Jackson alone explained why. She and Kagan have consistently done that. Sotomayor, less so. Conservatives, never. Yes, this still bothers me. 

Gorsuch/Native Americans

Kagama helped usher into our case law the theory that the federal government enjoys “plenary power” over the internal affairs of Native American Tribes. It is a theory that should make this Court blush. Not only does that notion lack any foundation in the Constitution; its roots lie instead only in archaic prejudices. This Court is responsible for Kagama, and this Court holds the power to correct it. We should not shirk from the task. 

Gorsuch used a non-grant to dissent and provide some broad woke comments about our historical mistreatment of Native Americans and the Supreme Court allowing Congress to have plenary power over their affairs. Thomas joined him.

Thomas has gone his own way regarding Native American issues, including the proper rules for criminal justice. He has not been as woke on the merits as Gorsuch, which threw a few people.

Gorsuch has a point, though it's unlikely the Supreme Court is going to shift gears after over a hundred years. They won't frame things quite as crudely as some opinions back then. But changing over a hundred years of congressional discretion here?

I think not. Gorsuch's Native American stuff sometimes appears a tad too precious to me. Still, it is worthwhile to press the envelope given how much baggage there has been here. 

==

Justice Jackson also dropped another order regarding the very accelerated SNAP litigation. To hint at the speed here, an appellate opinion was dropped late yesterday (Sunday). Legislatively, also in flux.

A Few More NYC Election Tidbits (SCOTUS Watch)

This week's SCOTUS summary is found here.

We had a significant increase in turnout, with as many voters as there were since 1969. The increase is relative, with only around 40% taking part. The Bronx had a paltry 28%. My city council district changed hands. What small fraction decided the result? 

Voting is a civic obligation. Many people think it is pointless to vote, including if they don't like the candidates. Republicans often felt they were wasting their vote, helping someone they strongly opposed in the process.  Others also did not like Mamdani. 

It is still important for people to vote. There were also other races and six ballot measures. The two links provide some voting analysis. For instance, the black vote significantly shifted from Cuomo in the primary to Mamdani in the general. Recall Mayor Eric Adams (black) was not in the primary. 

One analysis argues that Mamdani's leading reform proposals are cheap as a segment of the overall budget. The analysis provides some interesting information, including that free buses seem less extreme when 48% already do not pay for bus fares.

(That seems high, but there was a study comparing riders to fares obtained. I don't take buses too much, but have seen evidence of the overall practice.) 

Meanwhile, NY SNAP funding will continue even in the face of the government shutdown and Trump shenanigans. I expected state funding would help.

[ETA: After last night's SCOTUS order, the SNAP benefits are more up in the air. The linked article was updated since I first posted this.]

==

This entry has links to three online newspapers covering NYC and NY state news, as well as one to an NYT article. The (free) NY-specific online papers have provided helpful local coverage.  

Paywalls are annoying but fair since media providers need to be paid. Archived content can help avoid it. Also, you can fiddle around with the browser, including cookie settings, to avoid some others. 

Early Voting Begins

It is that time of the year again. Early voting has begun. Around five years ago, New York began to provide ten days of early voting. 

We also have "no excuse" vote by mail. I even convinced a voting-hesitant person to use it after years of not voting. She used an option where it is automatically sent to the voter, which is an incentive to vote as compared to those who would have to personally choose to vote each time. 

New York also provides a voting guide, though it does not cover judicial races. I find that dubious. 

I understand the value of convenience. I had to walk a significant way (not too long) the first time. Now, an early voting location is five minutes away. I will man the polls on Election Day.

(There is a race for governor going on in New Jersey. One person I follow on Bluesky is scaring me by warning us that the Democrat is not putting up enough of a fight. This is where we are at. Even NJ is not totally safe regarding not voting for the Trump Party.) 

Civic Duty 

I think in-person voting is an important symbolic act.

So, a little part of me doesn't like mail-in voting. But I understand there is a value there, especially for certain voters. It is best to have various options. 

Some argue Election Day should be a holiday to help some of these voters. It makes some sense, especially given the importance of voting overall to democracy.

But early voting helps to fill in that gap. After all, many people are already off today, Saturday, the first day of early voting. I don't think a whole day off is necessary. Early voting and many voting locations will also cut down wait times and other problems. 

Overall, we have a moral duty to vote. It is our civic duty. Some people are annoyed with that claim. 

How dare you tell me I have a duty to vote! I'm not (though it might work) talking about a penalty for refusing to vote. The state doesn't penalize being mean to mom. Is a minimal thing like voting too much for citizens to manage? Perhaps this helps explain things.

A fraction of the public voting has various problems. One problem is that it encourages very partisan representatives. Low turnout in primary elections is especially problematic when they are likely the "real" election in safe districts. AOC first won her primary with a tiny fraction of the vote. 

New York City Elections 

The two big things in NYC this year are the mayoral race and some ballot measures. 

Mayoral Race 

Zohran Mamdani is favored to win the mayoral race. He is a fitting answer to the times. Put aside the exaggerated, often bullshit criticisms. The main concern is that he is too young and inexperienced. He's more experienced than the Republican choice. 

And, as Mamdani said, Cuomo's "experience" is a big part of the problem. Plus, just what experience does he have to govern New York City well? Mamdani's campaign, including being open to respectfully listening, has shown a basic quality Cuomo lacks. 

It is a good thing that Mamdani and Cuomo (who should have simply dropped out) are not the only options. Mamdani's opposition hates that the anti-Mamdani vote is split. But do we really want Republicans and independents to only have to vote for Cuomo? It's as if Bill Clinton were the alternative to a very liberal presidential option in 1996.  

I'm obviously biased, but I am honest in saying that. My Republican city councilwoman (I have not seen a single campaign sign in the neighborhood of her competition; the Democrat deserves to lose), along with the rest of the small Republican caucus, endorsed Curtis Sliwa. If nothing else, Sliwa is not an asshole, Democratic, and likes cats. 

Sliwa is still not a serious option if you truly thought Republicans had a chance. He ran unopposed in the primary, probably because they felt Cuomo would win. He didn't. Too bad, Republicans. 

Additional candidates have filed to run on other ballot lines in the general election but have not raised significant funds or polled among leading candidates. They include Irene Estrada (Conservative Party) and Joseph Hernandez (Quality of Life Party). Walden and Adams will both still appear on the ballot, despite suspending their campaigns.

Some long-shot candidate (Walden) floated himself as an alternative for a little while. He waited too long to concede he had no shot and remained on the ballot. 

Eric Adams, who wound up endorsing Cuomo, is still on the ballot. Filling out the ballot is the first time I heard of the "quality of life" party. 

The biggest question is probably whether Mamdani receives over 50% of the vote. Cuomo concedes it is a longshot for him to win with Sliwa in the race. 

I am also interested in whether Adams or anyone else will receive a significant amount of the vote. I reckon Adams' loyalists might give him a percentage or two at least. I don't expect miracles with Mamdani.

But I think he gives us a chance to obtain some good things, including a suitably strong counter to Donald Trump. Plus, Adams is so darn crooked. 

Ballot Measures 

Mamdani has played it safe lately, including not stating his opinion on the ballot measures. 

I don't think the reason was the state measure concerning the use of wilderness land for development (more land will be put aside to compensate) or one about new maps. That is, the two I supported. A sixth measure about ending off-year elections (it is not the final step, even if it passed) is challenged here. 

The three housing measures, a "gift" of sorts from Zombie Candidate (he is still on the ballot), Mayor Eric Adams, are particularly touchy since the City Council hates them. It's logical since a major point is to reduce their role, to help speed up the process. 

Affordable housing advocates support the measures, though the League of Women Voters was agnostic about one of them. A "yes" vote seems reasonable, even a good idea. Still, I was hesitant. I decided to vote "no" out of caution. 

I am wary of direct democracy, especially regarding specialty issues and/or things that warrant the balancing of interests. This issue is a reasonable exception since it specifically challenges the City Council's role, and they are self-interested. 

Other Races 

One more thing. New York has a form of instant run-off voting for city races (district attorney is a state race). It is only available during the primary. 

There are other local races. Sometimes, you could vote third party (e.g., Working Families Party) instead of voting Democratic or Republican. For whatever reason, not every candidate runs on two lines.

It helps send a message that you support that cause. Third parties in even years also need significant vote totals to remain on the ballot. That doesn't seem like an issue in 2025. A few voters are confused and want to fill in the ovals for a candidate in both places! 

Sometimes, there is a third option, such as the "Unity" Party, which is meant to be a third "unity" type alternative. Only a few people vote for these candidates. Still, as with the chance to fill in your own candidate, it is helpful to provide other options. 

The comptroller and public advocate (who is the next in line if the mayorality is vacant) are decent Democratic sorts who will win. 

The city council races are generally not in doubt. Maybe there is some upset or two possible somewhere city-wide. I would hope that maybe my city council district (after an upset last time) would go back to being Democratic. But that candidate has basically not shown up. It is annoying.  

Judges 

Two local judicial candidates are also running unopposed in my district. This is common. 

It also underlines the stupidity of judicial races being on the ballot. Some states have more active judicial elections, and there are some ethically dubious things going on. Here, it is largely just something you fill in. 

The average voter knows little or nothing about them. Not that it often matters since (you can write in a name; I usually do), there often is no actual race. 

Final Thoughts 

I continue to find it reassuring that voters have a chance to decide on Election Day. Often, yes, things seem pro forma. The winners and losers are obvious.

Enough times to matter, however, there are actual races. That happened this year, too, especially the mayoral primary race. Either way, the act of voting, our civic duty, is a wondrous thing.

Some people argue that democracy is dead now that Trump is in power. Or, at the very least, it is in suspended animation, somewhat akin to Han Solo in that Star Wars movie. Fuck that. 

I got my sticker. And, voting still matters. It is still going on. Some might want to interfere, but we don't have to let them. Happy voting. 

SCOTUS Watch

Orders

We already discussed the order paving the way to another execution. It was handed down without comment. The other order did have an explanation, after Justice Sotomayor provided a (temporary) administrative stay:

The Court has already granted certiorari in this case on the sovereign immunity issue decided below, and the pending damages trial before the Supreme Court of the State of New York would be barred if New Jersey Transit Corporation were entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. Respondents, on the other hand, identify no tangible irreparable harm they would face if the trial were delayed until after this Court decides the pending case.

Steve Vladeck noted earlier that there was a good argument to reject the request. So, arguably, this say-so analysis is somewhat lacking. 

OTOH, for them, it is a descriptive discussion for the shadow docket. Baby steps. On Bluesky today, he added this Calvinball-esque comment:

It continues to be ... revealing ... how much the Court's orders on emergency applications in *non*-Trump-related cases are playing up the balance of the equities (and the presence/absence of irreparable harm) versus the Court's orders in Trump cases, which ... aren't.

Odds and Ends

I have repeatedly noted that the "Online Sources Cited in Opinions" (saves pages to avoid dead links) for 2024 was empty. It continued to be empty into the summer. It is now filled. 

There are two media advisories dated September 8th regarding seating in cases of particular interest.  These are specially provided when there is a concern about seating. One case is a major Voting Rights Case, and the other involves a ban on licensed conversion therapy for minors. 

There is also an updated November argument schedule, which will include the Trump tariff cases. The advocates expecting to argue a death penalty case in November are now in a wait-and-see mode. (They were displaced to fit in the tariff case.)  

Judicial Security Becomes Politicized

Lower court judges have had to deal with a lot more than strong dissent from Trump on down. They have received harassing phone calls, swatting attacks, and, in some cases, had serious threats of violence. A judge’s child was murdered. 

So, more security funds are a good thing. But so far, only justices have been given some in the new budget bill. If you read between the lines, the House is getting its marching orders from the Trump Administration, whose attacks on lower court judges who have repeatedly voted against its lawlessness are well known.

Hopefully, this will be addressed by the time the final bill is voted upon.  

Why Don't Democrats Support Voter ID Laws?

The notion that there are significant numbers of eligible voters out there who are prevented from voting if ID laws are in place is as dumb as the idea that there are significant numbers of illegal voters out there who voter ID laws will stop.

Adjectives are hard to quantify, but lawsuits and research have provided evidence that voting ID laws have blocked some people from voting. 

A trivial amount? Let's see how Democrats with their base will do handwaving when a few elderly black ladies can't vote because they lack the proper identification.

It is also a type of tax, especially depending on the identification necessary. When this was brought up before, this was somewhat handwaved by stating something like "well, it might cost $25, but."

Well, that's a poll tax. Lots of people already don't vote. Some additional barriers will be one more reason not to do so. Okay. Just make everything free! 

That would be nice, though it is not the case in all jurisdictions. The time and effort, including for those who don't bring the right i.d. to the polls, will still be there.

It's acknowledged that the laws aren't necessary to stop illegal voting. Encouraging identification, including helping people obtain identification for other uses, has some value. NYC established a convenient local photo identification that also brings benefits such as discounts at museums and so forth.

Voting identification -- which often does not require photographic identification (still another layer of regulation & the lack of a photograph lessens the alleged value of the regulation) -- might also help you gain votes for voting rights laws. And some political credibility as a "moderate." 

So, there is some value for Democrats, though a libertarian might find it bad policy. 

[The quote is from a self-proclaimed libertarian's comment, finding it stupid that Democrats don't support voter ID. 

The "libertarian" supports Israel, is critical of trans supporters, has not shown support of abortion rights, but otherwise has shown some libertarian consistency, including supporting Harris over Trump.]

OTOH, its [p.r.] value is limited. Not that many people care about the issue. If they are educated about the problem, they know voter identification isn't necessary.

So, you are likely to have a large segment of people who are conspiracy theorists or inclined not to trust vote integrity overall. They will find something to complain about.

Also, Democrats and those who support them have a reason to mistrust the good faith of supporters of voting identification laws.

Ignoring that, ignoring that there is no significant need for them (and the chance that once you give in, it will just encourage the "need" for more unnecessary voting regulations), noting that there will be some people for whom the identification will involve at least a minor amount of bother (and a few that will have more) ... well, yes, I can see why Democrats are wary about supporting them.

It might be useful if something was obtained in return & if there is a grace period, but I understand the concern.

19A Turns 105 & EJ Carroll Book

I cover the title in this Substack entry. 

Partisan Gerrymandering in the Texas and California

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump wants to rig the system because he thinks the people will not otherwise support him. There is much opposition to the things he has done so far. He is trying this time to do a bunch of things without congressional approval (illegally, though the Supreme Court repeatedly has helped him out).

Partisan gerrymandering is a basic way for a political party to obtain and retain power without popular support. It is ultimately a violation of the republican form of government. "We the People" no longer govern by a fair expression of the vote. 

The Guarantee Clause has long been deemed (probably somewhat wrongly) non-justiciable. Nonetheless, other means can be used by the courts, including the Equal Protection Clause (see "one person, one vote").  States and Congress can also address the problem.

The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) conclusively (after Kennedy never bit the bullet) said partisan gerrymandering is not for the federal courts to handle. I question blaming John Roberts, full stop, here. 

Kavanaugh is probably the person directly to blame. He was the fifth vote. Likewise, Barrett is to blame for Dobbs (abortion). But Roberts is the Chief Justice. It is part of his decades-long conservative anti-voting rights campaign.* 

Texas is the second most populous state. It is standardly cited as a red state. Nonetheless, over forty percent of the voting population voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. There is a significant Democratic presence. A fair map will provide many Democrats. Good luck with that. 

The campaign to make the map even more Republican-focused apparently cannot wait until the end of the decade. The Constitution sets forth once per decade apportionment tied to the census. Mid-decade apportionment, other than to fix disputed maps, should be traditionally disfavored. 

California, the most populous state (and state of mind), has stepped in to check Texas. They are using the amendment process and proposing a gerrymandered map. The people have to accept the amendment first. New York has a more extended process. We could not act as quickly.  

The amendment has language supporting federal reform, both legislatively and by constitutional amendment. Partisan gerrymandering ultimately requires a national solution. 

Strategically, unilateral disarmament is ill-advised. There will also be a "race to the bottom" problem. Now, Republicans control many more legislative halls and governors' mansions.

They see misrule as having short-term gains. 

==

* Roberts decided on Thursday, for once, to vote for the liberals during Trump 2.0 in a confusing 4-1-4 ruling. More shadow docket shenanigans. 

Jackson strongly speaks out, including accusing the Court of Calvinball. The case involving NIH funding, and in one bit, Jackson notes the result will include euthanizing animals used in research. 

Great. Now, SCOTUS is killing animals.

Let's Make D.C. A State

Trump attacked D.C. as a criminal hellscape even though crime rates are at a historical low. He took advantage (see link) of the complicated law in place to "take over" the police functions there. I use those quotes advisedly.

He cannot permanently take control. Nonetheless, there are various ways he can interfere with local control. Also, he can bullshit about the hellscape part. Both are bad.

The catalyst of this specific activity appears to be (though maybe they were planning it anyway) an attempted carjacking involving a former DOGE worker with a stupid nickname. The incident happened, even if he exaggerated it. 

Some data points don't change the overall fact that D.C. is not a hellscape. Or, that interfering with local government is wrong. We saw a preview of this a couple of years ago when some Democrats (a supermajority in the Senate, only a small fraction in the House) blocked a local crime bill. 

One message that recent events show is that we need to have D.C. statehood. I have supported something less (home rule + a voting member of the House), but realistically, that would require a constitutional amendment. Statehood is the easiest way to defend voting rights and home rule. 

The population warrants a voting House member, hopefully someone else than the current one, who is nearing ninety and is way past her prime. 

Statehood brings a few other things, but I don't think they are problematic with a few other states with similar populations in place. The fact that D.C. has less unpopulated land doesn't do much for me. 

(We can amend the Constitution to overturn the 23rd Amendment, but Congress can also just allot the electors by national population. So, that is not much of a problem.)

Someone elsewhere argued the current Supreme Court would not accept making D.C. a state. I think there are no good reasons constitutionally to deny statehood. But, stupidity is not a barrier for this Supreme Court. If so, that will provide an incentive to do something about the Court.

Short term, Trump can only do so much regarding D.C., and what he announced is, to some significant degree, a lot of blather. Longer term, it suggests that among the changes made should include D.C. statehood. The two senators will partially help to balance out the misapportioned Senate.  

It is also a learning opportunity regarding talking about crime and what to do about it. We can continue to blather on about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan. Either way, reducing the footprint of the police will promote public safety and police efficiency.  

And, tangentially, we should get a clear statement from Puerto Rico on what it wants to do regarding statehood. Puerto Rico repeatedly comes up in these discussions. Size-wise, at least, there is no complication regarding its "state-worthiness." 

Finally, in regard to "no taxation without representation" and all that, can territorial citizens overall finally be able to vote for president? Thinly populated territories might be too small to become states. They should have basic voting rights.  

(SCOTUS overturning the Insular Cases can help in the battle to treat overseas territories as equal partners)

And, yes, Trump is a convicted felon, and should be convicted of a lot more. He commuted and pardoned over 1000 people involved in the biggest crime in D.C. history. There is a big degree of “yeah right” to him fighting crime in D.C. 

August Sixth

Three important things happened today over the years. Other things happened. These things stand out.

Hiroshima

A nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan in 1945. We have since then debated if it was just to do so.

One analysis today suggests the Soviet Union's entering the war factored in. Experts still debating suggest that just maybe people in the midst of things acted reasonably. 

Not necessarily correctly. But 20/20 hindsight is easier than a decision in the middle of a world war. 

Voting Rights Act 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a fundamental defense of basic republican values. Voting rights are still threatened today. Rick Hasen's right-to-vote amendment idea (and his book discussing it) is worthwhile. 

I think the current Constitution protects a right to vote, but it has not been adequately applied in recent years. An amendment could also address such things as people in territories not being able to vote for president. 

A new Voting Rights Act is a fundamental goal when sanity returns to the national government.  

Bin Laden 

Today was also the date of the infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" presidential daily brief. 

The Bush Administration assured us no one would have expected something like that. See also, the chance Iraq II would go badly. No one expected that!

I am not going to say that President Gore would have stopped the attacks. There was reason to think Clinton/Gore were paying more attention to the overall threat of Bin Laden. But it assumes too much to think Gore would have stopped 9/11. 

It is more likely that the Gore Administration would have focused on Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq. How Gore would have handled Afghanistan -- it lingered on until the Biden Administration -- is also unclear. Some are a bit too cocksure about things. 

Here is a discussion on 9/11/21. 

Justice Souter Remembered

Strict Scrutiny Podcast during the summer has an opening news segment and follows up with an interview. The latest involved two Souter clerks talking about the recently deceased justice. 

Souter is probably my favorite modern-day justice. I was wary about him when he was confirmed. Why would I not? I was younger, and any nomination by a Republican president, especially to replace William Brennan, would be a problem. 

Souter had some dubious early votes, including Rust v. Sullivan. Still, he was part of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion) plurality and soon was fairly consistently voting with the liberals. He was no Brennan. But he was overall very good, including on the separation of church and state. 

I also like Souter's personality. He is more personable than I am. I am less of a Luddite. But his quiet, studious, and friendly character is something I firmly support.  Souter is the justice that I can most relate to in various respects.

He did join the majority in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), helping to overturn a couple of recent opinions involving victim impact statements. This was Justice Marshall's swan song, and his dissent was a somewhat hypocritical paean on stare decisis. As if honestly worried about that as a neutral principle

Marshall was worried about the new membership overturning various 5-4 majority opinions that he liked. And, though perhaps not quite the ones he specifically listed, that would happen in time. Roe v. Wade, one opinion he felt was doomed, was saved in the short term after he retired. 

Souter was later concerned about the lengths taken to produce victim impact statements. Payne himself was not executed. He was due to be executed in 2020, and then it was delayed due to COVID. Ultimately, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. 

Payne, even after all this time, is not even sixty years old. His ultimate fate is also a reminder that a Supreme Court opinion is not the end of the line. 

Different favorite Souter opinions were cited, including one involving voting rights (voter ID) and another concerning DNA testing. The dissent was something of a swan song involving Souter's support of substantive due process and common law judging. 

Souter supported the challenge on a narrower ground than the other liberals. He was open to a constitutional claim developing, but was careful about declaring it was already established. I have seen someone arguing that this 2009 dissent was a subtweet about same sex marriage. The law needs to get used to certain things.

This liberal judicial humility was sort of Brennan-lite and reflected in his famous Harvard speech. Again, I firmly agree. I have some broad views, but recognize there are some limitations about applying them.  

Souter was also known for his humor, somewhat dry and self-effacing. A famous case was when someone confused him with Justice Breyer. 

I have talked about Souter before, but we need to keep on remembering role models in these times. 

ETA: Justice Souter was originally given the dissent in the Citizens United case, but the majority expanded the stakes. Justice Stevens later said he used a chunk of Souter's original dissent in writing his own.

There appears to be some behind-the-scenes shenanigans in a voting rights case that the Supreme Court set for reargument. They got around to (late Friday in August) to flag what they have in mind. 

Richard Hasen and others are worried.  

Supreme Court Watch: Odds and Ends

We will have the first scheduled (of three) summer Order List on Monday. First, some odds and ends.

[ETA: The Order List was just a page of rehearing requests denied -- as they basically always are.]

Death Penalty

Kagan and Sotomayor (without comment) would have taken a case to stop the execution earlier this week. The execution was significant. We won't know short-term how much.

With Bell’s death, the number of executions in the US surpasses last year’s total. The number of executions has largely trended downward nationally this century after peaking with 98 in 1999. From 1995 to 2006, there was an average of about 67 executions a year.

Bell is the eighth person put to death in Florida this year, with a ninth scheduled for later this month. The state executed six people in 2023 but only one last year.

We are still a significant amount away from even sixty-seven, which is a fraction of the people on death row, which is a fraction of the death-eligible population. COVID and some problems with execution procedures help to explain some of the delay. There was a drop-off after 2006. 

The Trump Administration encourages an increase in death sentences and executions. We shall see how consistent this uptick will be long-term.  

Voting Rights

The Voting Rights Act has not done great in recent years. Shelby County v. Holder defanged preclearance. Other cases made it harder to win. And, now Trump.

The Trump Justice Department will not be too reliable in defense of voting rights. Thus, private lawsuits are that much more important. Long-term practice says they are acceptable. An outlier position, backed by the Eighth Circuit, calls them into question. As Steve Vladeck noted on Bluesky:

Justice Kavanaugh, acting alone, has issued an "administrative" stay of the Eighth Circuit's decision that private plaintiffs can't enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—temporarily freezing that ruling while the full Court decides whether to freeze it pending appeal.

The Supreme Court decided to use a (rare) reargument to further examine voting rights. Many think the whole Court will also eventually take this case.  Voting rights advocates are worried. 

[ETA: A week later, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting without opinion, the stay was kept in place. As usual, no one actually said why.] 

Odds and Ends

Sotomayor's dissent in the Department of Education case had a typo that was corrected. 

The website still had not added any saved URL pages on that page, though there are multiple links found in the opinions this term. Who, even at the Court, is aware of this? Well, I am.

A good summary of some troublesome lower court nominees from a religious liberty angle. 

Venezuela Prison Swap

A  prison swap raises issues that were handled by the Supreme Court on the emergency docket involving the Alien Enemies Act. I provide some discussion with links in the comments here. 

Lots of people were deported without due process. The conservatives provided minimal checks while enabling the Trump Administration in other cases. 

This swap -- dropped as a Friday news dump -- is a big story on its own. It also has a SCOTUS angle. 

Eric Adams Receives (Limited) Support from Police

13 Law Enforcement Unions Endorse Eric Adams in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

Not surprising that law enforcement unions endorse a former police officer over a Republican who cosplays as one. Plus, Adams is the semi-MAGA candidate.

Numbers can be misleading:

The largest NYPD union, the Police Benevolent Association, was not at the event. Sources told CBS News New York the PBA wants to go through its own endorsement process and has not yet made a decision on who it will support in the mayor's race.  

He also has problems with stability:

He cycled through three police commissioners before Jessica Tisch’s appointment in November, the first mayor to have that many in a single term since the 1930s.

Zohran Mamdani has left open keeping Jessica Tisch. People have assumed he is just about defunding the police. The guy who is seriously about gaining power to destroy the institutions he oversees is Trump.

Adams' law enforcement endorsements come at a critical time in the campaign, after former interim NYPD Commissioner Tom Donlon filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the mayor and top brass of running the department as a criminal organization. 

In the lawsuit, Donlon claims that he was commissioner in name only and was removed from the role when he tried to report corruption and misconduct. He accused the mayor of giving real authority to NYPD members who were loyal to him, alleging the group operated without oversight, enabling sexual predators and burying misconduct investigations. 

Adams has a history of helping sexual predators. See his relationship with Donald Trump. More:

His lawsuit follows one filed last week by four former NYPD chiefs who claim they were retaliated against by the Adams administration after they blew the whistle on corruption within the department’s highest ranks. 

Okay. There is a reason that Democrats weren't going to vote for this guy in the primary. The polls suggest Adams still has significant support, though he would lose in a one-on-one campaign versus Mamdani (Cuomo would win there). 

Republicans are bad at being fiscal conservatives. They have a reputation for being better than Democrats. They are not. 

They also have a reputation for being tough on crime. That is also a mixed thing, especially regarding results. Trump has supported lots of criminals, including himself.

Eric Adams is a bad choice. He isn't even that strong, one issue you would think would help him. Being indicted didn't help there. But there is a lot more. 

Cuomo, who lost the primary and has his own problems with the law, is also a bad choice. Let's vote for the other Democrat, who is also conveniently running on that line. 

If you are a Republican, maybe you want to vote for Curtis Sliwa. I don't think he has the experience and serious policy chops to warrant that. Still, I understand the sentiment on a partisan level. Better than voting for Adams or Cuomo, probably.

Cuomo these days might be Trump's choice, now that Trump made Adams his you know what. Cuomo definitely has Trump-lite vibes in various respects. 

Vote Mamdani. It isn't too hard. If you aren't a progressive, just consider the alternatives.

If you are a conservative, fine, vote Sliwa if that is your jam. Mamdani will only lose, however, if there is a serious failure from the Democratic side. And, even then, splitting the vote will ease the blow. 

Eric Adams' having problems with the police underlines that the other options are not ideal. Cuomo has already lost. He had to resign being governor.

Again, it isn't THAT hard. 

Open Primary in NYC (and DEI Again)

In 2023, Common Cause New York issued a report on New York’s “unaffiliated” voters, who represent more than a million voters in New York City and are now the second largest voting bloc citywide.

A local op-ed opposed putting an open primary on the ballot in New York City. It did not necessarily oppose the concept. Nonetheless, it argued that more study should be provided. [ETA: Never mind.]

The argument appears reasonable. We are having an atypical mayoral election this year with at least one major third-party candidate (Eric Adams). The unaffiliated voters weren't the only ones unable to take part in the primary. The Republicans did not have a contested mayoral primary.

Mamdani appeals to a plurality of voters. Republicans are a minority (only about five members of the city council are Republican). The result is that there is a middle group who wish for a third candidate. Adams and Cuomo, however, are dubious options for certain non-ideological reasons.  

I think an open (or "jungle") primary in an area that is strongly one-party makes sense. The alternative might not result in a fair representation of the will of the electorate. Curtis Sliwa is not a typical Republican. 

OTOH, if we are going to change how we vote, it should be done carefully. So, I find the op-ed convincing. 

Diversity ensures representation among qualified persons across race, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, socioeconomic status, military status, shared ancestry, parental status, persons who live in rural communities, and more, so that institutions reflect the communities they serve.

DEI came up on another blog. It is a favorite target, and some people conclusively say it failed. I have talked about this issue before. It still bothers me.

DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access) is fundamentally a good thing. It is not just about race (or sex). It has quite a few aspects that few will oppose across the board (e.g., disability access or religious accommodations).  

DEI (the "A" is often left off) is used as a buzzword. It is more political theater than an honest attempt to address the substance. 

Some aspects will be controversial and/or problematic. Others are fine. Others are good. 

I will die on that hill. Well, I will die on many hills. 

A Few More NYC Primary Thoughts

Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed Mamdani, told Cuomo in the same debate: “Everybody here knows that you sexually harassed women, that you created a toxic work environment.”

There have been some "ding dong, the witch is dead" remarks regarding Cuomo's bad showing. 

I find this somewhat concerning, even if he conceded a week before New York will goto the next round of the ranked choice voting count process since no one received a majority in the first round. Some observers argue that it looks like Cuomo is done. I hope so. 

[ETA: For now, it looks like he is still in. 

The best hope is that the non-Mamdani candidates share an overall electorate. It still is important for Cuomo to have the smallest support base as possible.]

People (and some are starting to) need to get behind Mamdani (by the way, his mother is Mira Nair, the director of such films as Mississippi Masala) so that his success appears to be a fait accompli. Many people and groups (including unions and Jessica f-ing Ramos) supported Cuomo since they thought he was going to win and being on his bad side was dangerous since he is such an asshole.

Mayor Eric Adams, who it is somewhat hard to believe is still a thing, has started his de facto campaign to be the quasi-Republican candidate [there is an actual one, but it is hard to take him too seriously]. And, why not do it on Fox News? 

November's electorate is going to be somewhat different, especially since many Republicans did not vote this time around.  In my district, the only race for them to vote for was the comptroller contest. And, though there was a significant increase in early voting, the turnout was under 30% in major New York cities. That isn't good, but it's not new either.  

New York helped things by having early voting/no excuse voting by mail as well as stopping the practice of having two separate primaries for state and federal elections [presidential elections are separate]. Also, the articles discuss another tweak that doesn't seem to affect NYC too much.  

I don't think having a primary in September instead of June would change much overall. Congressional primaries regularly have small turnouts, including when AOC first ran. You might hope the mayor would be more likely to bring in voters. Also, maybe a non-partisan primary with the top two running in November would make sense.  

There very well might have been a broad assumption that Cuomo was going to win. The biggest energy then went into providing an enthusiastic progressive alternative. Unfortunately, many people didn't feel comfortable with either. So, you were resigned to Cuomo, but also lacked the passion to vote for someone else. 

The broad number of candidates might have hurt things there for those who didn't like Cuomo and thought Mamdani was not for them. Plus, these other people did not reach too many people, especially in the last month. I'm talking about campaigning and ads. Adrienne Adams came to the race late. 

Brad Lander, who might otherwise be the presumed frontrunner, was crowded out by Mamdani. He correctly realized Cuomo was the biggest problem, and they cross-endorsed each other. Lander is quite progressive. Mamdani just outdid him on energy and possibility. Sort of an Obama. 

If we had a non-partisan primary, Curtis Sliwa (who ran unopposed as a Republican) very well might not have come in second. Eric Adams might have run. If he did, Cuomo very well might not have. We would have Mamdani vs. someone else in November. 

For now, let's see how the ranking process completes. For instance, the Democratic primary for the city council in my district is still open. 

The other borough-wide and city-wide races went down as expected, including the favored city comptroller. Shekera Algarin (I wrote in a name) won the civil judicial race. 

Thanks to those who said no to Cuomo, who is patently unfit for public office. If we cannot manage to realize that in NYC, it is rather unfortunate.  

ETA: A few days later, there is this "Mamdani, who I'm not that big a fan of, is going to win" op-ed. 

It's fairly convincing. If he had one serious opponent without baggage (0/3, one way or the other), it would be much more possible. He does not. 

Still seems a bit crazy. Knock on wood. Can New York actually get a decent mayor? Or, will he flub things up? Well, let's not skip ahead. 

The ranked choice process did not even finish! 

NYC DID Say No to Cuomo!

I continued my up-close experience of New York City elections by being a poll worker. I helped to check in voters at a local polling place on primary day. 

Early voting began around when I started voting at the polling place. So, election day itself is no longer as important. It still has a certain energy and symbolic importance. 

I discuss things further, including comparing the upset of Cuomo with Democratic leadership here. 

No Kings Day, Flag Day, and NYC Votes

Busy day. I cover it all here. (More here.) 

The Court v. The Voters

I noted my opinion that the Constitution protects a right to vote. A book assumes it does too in various ways while listing various cases where the Supreme Court threatened voting rights. 

Justice Douglas in Baker v. Carr argues that "the right to vote is inherent in the republican form of government." A follow-up case, Reynolds v. Sims, held that “since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” 

The right to vote is a "fundamental right," which is particularly notable when equal protection is involved. Voting also involves the freedom of association, including protection of candidates whom they might vote for. One case declared that an "election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and a candidate serves as a rallying point for like-minded citizens."

Voting rights, after the 1960s, began to be given less protection, including in Richardson v. Ramirez (felons). One problematic case allowed Hawaii not to allow write-in voting. Bush v. Gore (with the dubious argument that it was partially 7-2, though all four dissented in full) and later cases are cited.

In the final chapter, some possible solutions are offered. Three general strategies:

1. Voters compromise/avoid SCOTUS
2.  Reasonable Court Reform
3.  Mobilize/form a pro-democracy movement

A compromise approach can aim for bipartisan, voting-friendly legislation:

1. Every eligible person can vote with minimal burden
2. Acknowledge concerns for potential fraud [e.g., use of paper ballots]
3. Voters should be as educated as possible
4. Elections should be based on ideas, not rules; losers should accept defeat 

Perhaps, per Rick Hasen, the ultimate goal can be a constitutional amendment broadly protecting a right to vote. We can also seek out national legislation, though the author supports a state-by-state method.

The book is overall a pretty good read, though it has some annoying mistakes, such as having Burger as an Eisenhower nominee (not as a lower court judge). It is not comprehensive (chapters are around 15 pages long), so some details in the cases are left out.

Still, it is a good way to learn about the cases and general principles. And there are some good developments, including pro-voting legislation in Kentucky, judicial elections helping in Wisconsin, and even places like Texas (pushed by litigation) easing its voting ID laws (a waiver can be signed to avoid photo IDs). Still a long way to go.

ETA: One person on a blog comment -- from someone often less troll-y than others, but has a hobbyhorse about the horrible nature of the law partially struck down in Citizens United, took a slanted approach to my summary's bullet points.

Don't do this unless you are sure the person you are engaging with is arguing in bad faith or is ignorant. And, even then, replying with a chip on your shoulder ("do you know" ... yes, I said that read a whole book on voting rights by a progressive; I'm aware of literacy tests and so forth, putting aside my other knowledge on such subject matters) is not often likely to do much. It will breed resentment and flame wars. 

For instance, I said, "should be as educated as possible." It's perfectly fine to ask me to clarify. But, assuming there is no way ("can't think of something") to do that in a positive way (voter education) is silly. 

I provided multiple examples of truly bipartisan campaigns. Again, since the person doesn't like a single law (better yet, part of it), they latch onto the one single example, badmouthing the sponsors. In this fashion, the author is not really bipartisan. 

Since it's a "law," it passed Congress. Two people you dismissive as dilettantes or whatever, aren't the only ones who supported it. 

The Supreme Court upheld most of the challenged portions the first time around, with Republican appointed justices going along in various respects. A Reagan appointee who was a Republican leader in the Arizona state legislature counts. 

And, yes, the person provided a slanted understanding of the provision struck down, including alleging it targeted minority speech. This is untrue overall, but particularly absurd when applied to anti-Hillary Clinton videos. Ah yes. Only a small segment strongly criticised her, someone who didn't even win the nomination when the film was created.  

I didn't provide that snarky part, but it is sometimes difficult to avoid doing so when a reply is so off base and (wrongly) infers you are not speaking in good faith. I followed up my two comments with long-ish replies. I put in the work. In response, I get bullshit.

Yes, it's hard for me to respect someone who does that, even if they are generally less troll-y than some of the people on the blog. I very well might respond -- insert "someone is wrong on the Internet" comic strip -- and try to be fair about it. 

And, if I insert just a bit of snark, many will latch on to it, not being able to take what they dish out.   

SCOTUS Watch

News reports show why, contra Alito (with Thomas) dissenting, the Supreme Court was correct to drop its late-night order regarding the usage of the Alien Enemies Act and so on. They had buses ready for the airport. Sorry, Alito, not premature. 

Order List 

Last week's Relist Watch flagged a post office dispute with competing petitions. This week's Order List took the U.S. case and turned down the petition on the other side. Otherwise, it was run-of-the-mill housekeeping sort of thing. 

Opinion 

The one opinion was summarized by Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky this way:

The Supreme Court's first and only opinion today is a technical but important 5–4 win for immigrants. Gorsuch holds that a voluntary departure deadline which falls on a weekend or holiday extends to the next business day. Roberts and the three liberals join. 

The majority first explained why it was appropriate to decide the merits. The majority then acknowledged there were different reasonable ways to interpret the provision involved, but went in one direction using a "customary interpretive tool." 

This led to three different opinions (Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) dissenting over the power of the Supreme Court to hear the question and the merits.  

One or more additional opinions are due next Tuesday.  

Orders 

The Supreme Court addressed a lower court ruling that Kavanaugh had held up by a temporary "administrative stay." The Court let the ruling stand with Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh (without comment), saying they would not do so.  

As noted by the lower court:

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has eight times rejected a proposed summary of a proposed constitutional amendment, preventing its proponents from circulating a petition and collecting signatures needed to place it on the ballot.  

The Supreme Court generally does not intervene in lower court matters, so the most notable thing here is the three dissenters. The amendment involves limits on qualified immunity and has a good chance of passing. If so, that's appreciated.  

There are also proposed amendments to the rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure submitted by Chief Justice Roberts to Congress as authorized by law. 

Late Friday Watch: The Supreme Court again dropped a late order, early Friday evening. It asked for further briefing in a pending case, including dropping two 19th-century cases to discuss.  

SCOTUSblog Watch

Tom Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSblog, is currently in some legal trouble arising from his gambling habit. This led to concerns about the website. There is some news:

The site is being acquired by The Dispatch, a right-of-center political news and commentary start-up founded by the conservative journalists Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes. 

Amy Howe is one of the regulars who are sticking around. The main coverage will continue to be free with "plans to develop paid products for legal professionals in the coming months." 

Well, we will see how that goes. 

SCOTUS Watch

Extra: I enjoyed Charlie Brown's Christmas Miracle: The Inspiring, Untold Story of the Making of a Holiday Classic, which is chock-full of information. 

I rewatched the special a few weeks ago and enjoyed that too.

==

There were no oral arguments or scheduled opinion days, but it was still a pretty busy week. 

I addressed a pro forma rejection of final death penalty appeals separately. 

The week started with a ho-hum Order List, which gave me a chance on my substack to provide an Explainer. I wish SCOTUS provided an FAQ. 

After posting, I checked online, and what do you know. There was a per curiam opinion dropped. 

Alien Enemies Act 

The Supreme Court split 5-4 (also by sex), with strong dissents by Sotomayor and Jackson (alone). Barrett joined parts of Sotomayor's dissent. The case involves the Alien Enemies Act.  

There is good and bad news. The majority acknowledged that the government had to provide notice and a chance to be heard before seizing people and sending them off to foreign hellholes. 

So why the passionate dissents? Steve Vladeck and others explain that the limited habeas protections do not meet the moment. The opinion was a gratuitous limitation on addressing the threat. Since so many people will have to sue in the Fifth Circuit, there is also a greater likelihood of conservative results.  

Sotomayor also provided details of what is happening over the bare, unsigned majority opinion, which complained about the "rhetoric" of the dissents. Barrett did not join much of this aspect of the opinion. Kavanaugh dropped an "I'm so reasonable" concurrence, tossing in some mansplaining. 

Jackson strongly called out the majority for using the "shadow of the emergency docket" in a "fly-by-night approach" that is "dangerous." The stakes:

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Garcia fled El Salvador at age sixteen in 2011, illegally entering the country. While looking for work, he was arrested in 2019. A court protected him from being deported because of the risks. 

The Trump Administration illegally deported him and eventually admitted the error. They claimed, however, that they had no power to get him back. A federal judge told them to try. Roberts granted an administrative stay as time ticked by. 

A legalistic per curiam was handed down, providing a "he said/they said." Sotomayor, for the liberals, says more bluntly that there is no evidence he is guilty. They would not have intervened. 

Nonetheless, without dissent, it also noted that the district court's "order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."

As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs. By directly noting the deference owed to the Executive Branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the President’s authority to conduct foreign policy.

[Justice Department Statement]

As Steve Vladeck notes, the presumption of regularity is problematic. The Justice Department replied, which doesn't bode too well, though hopefully he will come back. What about other people wrongly sent?

And, we simply cannot trust this Administration. After all, for telling the truth to the judge that a mistake was made, the acting deputy director of the department’s immigration litigation division was suspended.

For instance, the district judge called a hearing on Friday. The Administration tried to delay. No. The hearing takes place, and the judge asks where he is and if something is being done to get him back. The official word was "info not available." 

Bullshit. At some f-ing point, these people have to be held legally in contempt. Judges being mad is not satisfying when people are rotting in foreign jails. 

More Trump Rulings 

Another per curiam paused a ruling that stopped firing some government workers. A parallel case is still active. The short opinion noted that the people did not have standing. Sotomayor dissented without comment. Jackson said there was no reason to intervene now. Kagan went along without comment. 

Chief Justice Roberts also supplied an "administrative stay" (a limited pause) blocking illegal firings of members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board. Trump is trying to expand previous Roberts Court rulings.

The new solicitor general claims the lower courts are causing "chaos." This is gaslighting. Trump is doing so by going against long precedent to see how far he can go. And, he might win on this one. 

No wonder a long-term member of the Solicitor General's office (he mentored Alito and Kagan) is retiring. Many others are getting the hell out too. 

And More 

Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky:

Kavanaugh [issued| an administrative stay freezing a 6th Circuit order directing Ohio to approve, for the ballot, an initiative that would end qualified immunity under state law. Officials blocked the initiative on highly questionable grounds that, per the 6th Circuit, violate free speech.

A new director of the Federal Judicial Center was announced. Does Thomas know about this?

"Center education programs include orientation and continuing education for judges on subjects including law and procedure, case management, and ethics."  

Coming Up

There was no scheduled Friday conference. So, no Monday Order List. They are keeping busy, though. 

They return next Thursday for a non-public argument session. That usually means swearing in lawyers, though maybe they will decide to drop opinions.