The Supreme Court's internal norms usually make it more than a little difficult to be confident about which decisions in argued cases will be handed down when.
Thank you for highlighting the gamesmanship of lawyers and judges "in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish" in which "the defendants apparently tried to preserve Alito’s participation—by 'voluntarily dismissing' Burlington from 'the case' prior to the Court’s grant of certiorari, even though it remains a party in the lower courts."
Too many lawyers and judges violate their oaths to fulfill their first and constant duty, which is to support our Constitution. Too many lawyers and judges have worked too long to use courts to subvert the primary founding principle of our Constitution and our nation. They pretend that what judges say and do is more important than the actual supreme law of the land.
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall and SCOTUS devoted their opinion to showing people how and why Article VI (the Supremacy Clause and the Oath Clause) established that “[t]he government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” Many lawyers and judges use many tricks and schemes (including so-called judicial doctrines) to undermine our Constitution and turn courts into instruments of the opposite--a government of mere men (judges) and not of laws. SCOTUS justices highlight that problem constantly with the shadow docket, the process of granting or denying cert., and even how they write their opinions these days to include flagrant falsehoods about our Constitution and our history in virtually, if not actually, every case pertaining to Trump or partisan gerrymandering.
I wonder whether it is possible that dissenting Justices might time their dissents in order to delay an outcome until the majority's position becomes either moot or unenforceable. To take the Louisiana redistricting case, could those Justices who oppose Louisiana's position delay their dissent until it is too late to affect the upcoming midterm? Is there room for and would it violate the norms of the Court to engage in such action?
I have a friend who works for a business that is VERY invested in the tariff decision. & people in the company were all excited last week. “We have sources connected to Congress that tell us the decision will be handed down Fri.” LOL!
1) I told her they needed sources on SCOTUS (I’m sharing this newsletter with her), not Congress.
2) I said maybe, but that would be awfully quick. (Btw, SCOTUSblog’s stat pack on the 2024-2025 term confirmed that that would be awfully quick. It gave me numbers, not just “feels.” My “feels” is not earlier than March.)
The Texas three-judge panel ruling in the recent redistricting case offered a sense for how decorum plays a role in a case, where the majority rules before the dissenting judge has finished their opinion. Not a good path to follow!
Is it not a conflict of interest for public servants not to own government bonds exclusively?
The Alien Tort Act case is actually a twofer with Torture Victims Protection Act and is by far the most interesting case noted for argument. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Doe I, et al., No. 24-856 (Jan 31, 2025):
That case has an interesting quote, given current events:
"ATS suits against domestic corporations frequently involve claims that they aided and abetted misconduct abroad—which often implicate the conduct of foreign states in
their sovereign territories."
I assume the Trump administration has sovereign immunity, but I'm curious if something like this could become a case of first impression: does ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips or any other major oil concern profiting from a plainly illegal invasion of Venezuela qualify as aiding-and-abetting? (meaning in the future and in a post-Trump judiciary)
"[T]he justices vacated Justice Alito’s administrative stay (and denied a stay pending appeal) in a long-running labor dispute between the company that owns the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the union representing many of its employees"
For those who might've missed the news – routine nowadays, given how much hits the fan during any given hour of nearly every single day – the Post-Gazette is, sadly, joining the scrap heap of shuttered newspapers. They announced recently that they're closing in May. Does this mean the case is already effectively moot due to a lack of standing?
"The elephant in the room is the possibility that a majority of the Court would move to release a decision before separate opinions, including dissents, were concluded."
True, though I'm curious: have recent real-life events affected the Court's general disposition towards the Trump administration's goings-on? They obviously know the gravity of the our unprovoked invasion of Venezuela, and unless they're being willfully ignorant or obtuse, they should also realize that their own actions – or the lack thereof – created the environment in which Trump thought he could unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, without even a reasonable pretextual argument, and kidnap its leader.
I assume Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch are a lost cause, but given the circumstances, I have to wonder whether at least two of the remaining conservatives would side with Trump on either issue. This seems like a disastrous time to be pushing actual judicial activism with something like a majority opinion being prematurely released.
Not a Supreme response but my support for organizations like Girl Scouts of America. Sydney is learning about merchandising, being a salesperson and promotion of a goods. All interesting lessons, although never phrased that way. And while I have always felt that the GS cookies were overpriced and the cookie makers got the bulk of the revenue, the girls were learning valuable lessons if not really enhancing the coffers of the GS movement. My 3 girls looked forward each year to meeting our neighbors and taking orders, organizing the orders, handling the money, and making prompt deliveries. I see that much of that is now taken away but you, Steve, are teaching Sydney how to manage in the world she is growing up in. Probably equally valuable lesson here.
Thanks for shedding a bit of light on the mysteriously timed decisions and announcements coming from the nine. Maybe I’ll be more patient in my expectations from now on. I’m glad to know that their procedures allow for back and forth sharing of written drafts. Decisions that may stand for decades or centuries ought not to be rushed.
I was a girl scout cookie mom many moons ago. Is the reason for online selling because it's easier, or is it a safety issue?
A court question: I watched Marc Elias' interview with Dahlia Lithwick. She said that SCOTUS is the branch with the power. For example, 1) SCOTUS gave Trump immunity, and 2) the reason Congress doesn't stand up more is because SCOTUS has taken away some of their power. She believes the court wants more power. Your thoughts?
A SCOTUS reform I’d love to see is that decisions must be issued by the end of second month after the month SCOTUS heard the case (e.g., by 12/31 for Oct cases). A secondary effect of this might be the Court issues much shorter opinions and less concurrences, which would be positive. As an example, the Dobbs majority opinion was over 100 pages. It could easily have been under 10 pages and probably under 5.
Steve, many years ago I argued for post-conviction relief in a state case in the Supreme Court of Missouri. It was a classic failure of adequate representation case. The defense lawyer had literally fallen asleep during the trial. Defendant's lawyer in his first post conviction effort was drunk when he filed and argued the case. When I argued that he should have second effort at post conviction relief, various members of the State Supreme Court gave the Attorney General a hard time about how it could be possible that the Court could be prohibited from reviewing such a case, but later unanimously ruled that one post conviction relief attempt was all that the rules allowed!
Pittsburgh Press’s stay play was quixotic and ridiculous; fortunately the SG’s response played it right down the middle, with no hints that the government may “confess error” on one issue (consequential damages) when it’s squarely presented.
Thank you for highlighting the gamesmanship of lawyers and judges "in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish" in which "the defendants apparently tried to preserve Alito’s participation—by 'voluntarily dismissing' Burlington from 'the case' prior to the Court’s grant of certiorari, even though it remains a party in the lower courts."
Too many lawyers and judges violate their oaths to fulfill their first and constant duty, which is to support our Constitution. Too many lawyers and judges have worked too long to use courts to subvert the primary founding principle of our Constitution and our nation. They pretend that what judges say and do is more important than the actual supreme law of the land.
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall and SCOTUS devoted their opinion to showing people how and why Article VI (the Supremacy Clause and the Oath Clause) established that “[t]he government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” Many lawyers and judges use many tricks and schemes (including so-called judicial doctrines) to undermine our Constitution and turn courts into instruments of the opposite--a government of mere men (judges) and not of laws. SCOTUS justices highlight that problem constantly with the shadow docket, the process of granting or denying cert., and even how they write their opinions these days to include flagrant falsehoods about our Constitution and our history in virtually, if not actually, every case pertaining to Trump or partisan gerrymandering.
I wonder whether it is possible that dissenting Justices might time their dissents in order to delay an outcome until the majority's position becomes either moot or unenforceable. To take the Louisiana redistricting case, could those Justices who oppose Louisiana's position delay their dissent until it is too late to affect the upcoming midterm? Is there room for and would it violate the norms of the Court to engage in such action?
I have a friend who works for a business that is VERY invested in the tariff decision. & people in the company were all excited last week. “We have sources connected to Congress that tell us the decision will be handed down Fri.” LOL!
1) I told her they needed sources on SCOTUS (I’m sharing this newsletter with her), not Congress.
2) I said maybe, but that would be awfully quick. (Btw, SCOTUSblog’s stat pack on the 2024-2025 term confirmed that that would be awfully quick. It gave me numbers, not just “feels.” My “feels” is not earlier than March.)
The Texas three-judge panel ruling in the recent redistricting case offered a sense for how decorum plays a role in a case, where the majority rules before the dissenting judge has finished their opinion. Not a good path to follow!
P.S. Thanks for the cookie tip!
That court had reason until it discovered that the Big Court uses the McConnell Calendar for determining proximity to an election date.
Only a small part of the sniping, and none of the unhingedness of that dissenting screed would have been removed.
I was not intending to chastise the majority, btw. I agree with you that time mattered!
Got it. Thanks!
Is it not a conflict of interest for public servants not to own government bonds exclusively?
The Alien Tort Act case is actually a twofer with Torture Victims Protection Act and is by far the most interesting case noted for argument. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Doe I, et al., No. 24-856 (Jan 31, 2025):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html
That case has an interesting quote, given current events:
"ATS suits against domestic corporations frequently involve claims that they aided and abetted misconduct abroad—which often implicate the conduct of foreign states in
their sovereign territories."
I assume the Trump administration has sovereign immunity, but I'm curious if something like this could become a case of first impression: does ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips or any other major oil concern profiting from a plainly illegal invasion of Venezuela qualify as aiding-and-abetting? (meaning in the future and in a post-Trump judiciary)
Yes, I imagine the Court took the case to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but it might also be meant as a warning.
"[T]he justices vacated Justice Alito’s administrative stay (and denied a stay pending appeal) in a long-running labor dispute between the company that owns the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the union representing many of its employees"
For those who might've missed the news – routine nowadays, given how much hits the fan during any given hour of nearly every single day – the Post-Gazette is, sadly, joining the scrap heap of shuttered newspapers. They announced recently that they're closing in May. Does this mean the case is already effectively moot due to a lack of standing?
"The elephant in the room is the possibility that a majority of the Court would move to release a decision before separate opinions, including dissents, were concluded."
True, though I'm curious: have recent real-life events affected the Court's general disposition towards the Trump administration's goings-on? They obviously know the gravity of the our unprovoked invasion of Venezuela, and unless they're being willfully ignorant or obtuse, they should also realize that their own actions – or the lack thereof – created the environment in which Trump thought he could unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, without even a reasonable pretextual argument, and kidnap its leader.
I assume Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch are a lost cause, but given the circumstances, I have to wonder whether at least two of the remaining conservatives would side with Trump on either issue. This seems like a disastrous time to be pushing actual judicial activism with something like a majority opinion being prematurely released.
Sydney's recording is the cutest thing!! Great job Sydney!
Not a Supreme response but my support for organizations like Girl Scouts of America. Sydney is learning about merchandising, being a salesperson and promotion of a goods. All interesting lessons, although never phrased that way. And while I have always felt that the GS cookies were overpriced and the cookie makers got the bulk of the revenue, the girls were learning valuable lessons if not really enhancing the coffers of the GS movement. My 3 girls looked forward each year to meeting our neighbors and taking orders, organizing the orders, handling the money, and making prompt deliveries. I see that much of that is now taken away but you, Steve, are teaching Sydney how to manage in the world she is growing up in. Probably equally valuable lesson here.
Thanks for shedding a bit of light on the mysteriously timed decisions and announcements coming from the nine. Maybe I’ll be more patient in my expectations from now on. I’m glad to know that their procedures allow for back and forth sharing of written drafts. Decisions that may stand for decades or centuries ought not to be rushed.
I was a girl scout cookie mom many moons ago. Is the reason for online selling because it's easier, or is it a safety issue?
A court question: I watched Marc Elias' interview with Dahlia Lithwick. She said that SCOTUS is the branch with the power. For example, 1) SCOTUS gave Trump immunity, and 2) the reason Congress doesn't stand up more is because SCOTUS has taken away some of their power. She believes the court wants more power. Your thoughts?
A SCOTUS reform I’d love to see is that decisions must be issued by the end of second month after the month SCOTUS heard the case (e.g., by 12/31 for Oct cases). A secondary effect of this might be the Court issues much shorter opinions and less concurrences, which would be positive. As an example, the Dobbs majority opinion was over 100 pages. It could easily have been under 10 pages and probably under 5.
Steve, many years ago I argued for post-conviction relief in a state case in the Supreme Court of Missouri. It was a classic failure of adequate representation case. The defense lawyer had literally fallen asleep during the trial. Defendant's lawyer in his first post conviction effort was drunk when he filed and argued the case. When I argued that he should have second effort at post conviction relief, various members of the State Supreme Court gave the Attorney General a hard time about how it could be possible that the Court could be prohibited from reviewing such a case, but later unanimously ruled that one post conviction relief attempt was all that the rules allowed!
Happy to buy some cookies from a Mets family!!!
Pittsburgh Press’s stay play was quixotic and ridiculous; fortunately the SG’s response played it right down the middle, with no hints that the government may “confess error” on one issue (consequential damages) when it’s squarely presented.