,
16 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Now, for the final #SCOTUS decisions of the term.
First #SCOTUS decision is Mitchell v. Wisconsin, with Breyer joining the more conservative justices and Gorsuch joining the more liberal justices to create a 5-4 ruling allowing a blood-draw from an unconscious driver when BAC information is sought. supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf…
Note that Gorsuch did not join his more liberal colleagues on the merits of their dissent, though. He would have just tossed the case. 
BREAKING: The Supreme Court says that partisan gerrymandering claims are a "political question" that cannot be challenged in court. The 5-4 ideological vote includes a majority decision by Chief Justice Roberts and dissent from Justice Elena Kagan.
Here is the decision and Roberts' primary conclusion: supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf…
And, here's how Kagan opens the dissent, saying the court has gone "tragically wrong."
Former head of DOJ Civil Rights Division under Obama, and now the head of @civilrightsorg, on today's partisan gerrymandering decision —>
With the Chief Justice announcing the partisan gerrymandering decision, in theory, both of the other remaining decisions — Murphy and Commerce — should be coming for him (or the court is going to do something different with one or both of them).
Both @rickhasen and @JoshMBlackman were suggesting things that could happen in the Census citizenship question case — due to the equal protection issues not addressed her but being addressed in another case not yet before the justices.
And, there's this issue in Murphy —>
This is the end of Kagan's dissent, so we should be moving on shortly ...
BREAKING: #SCOTUS, with Roberts joining the more liberal justices, rules in the Census citizenship question case that "we cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made [to include the citizenship question] and the explanation given [of Voting Rights Act enforcement]."
[I'm back.] #SCOTUS said the dist court was right in blocking the Census citizenship question as it was and in sending the issue back to the agency. But Roberts also said SCOTUS wasn't saying that adding the question was "substantively invalid." In other words, more could happen.
It looks like folks are split on two issues: whether Commerce could move things forward quickly enough to make getting the question back on the form possible; and, even if so, whether Commerce could find a way to cure the problems in a way that courts would allow it to go on.
For his part, @rickhasen appears to think the answers to both questions are, at least possibly, yes. slate.com/news-and-polit…
