Thread by @mjs_DC

Who's ready for SCOTUS orders at 9:30 and opinions at 10?

Big cases remaining: abortion, government funding of religious schools, the contraceptive mandate, faithless electors, Trump's financial records...

Also, SCOTUS is due for a decision on whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure violates the Constitution—and, if so, whether the unconstitutional provision can be severed from the rest of the law, or if the entire CFPB must fall.

This is big news. Over the dissents of Sotomayor and Ginsburg, SCOTUS refuses to hear Bourgeois v. Barr, effectively allowing the Trump administration to resume the federal death penalty. Expect executions to begin soon. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

Hogan Lovells' Cate Stetson did an extraordinary job representing the death row inmates challenging Barr's effort to resume the federal death penalty. And I think she was absolutely correct that these executions will violate the Federal Death Penalty Act. scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…

Why didn't Breyer, who believes the death penalty is unconstitutional in all its applications, join Sotomayor and Ginsburg in dissenting from the court's refusal to hear these cases?

Academic explanation: He saw no merit in these challenges.

Cynical explanation: horse-trading.

The two D.C. Circuit judges who wrote the 2–1 decision allowing resumption of the federal death penalty were Katsas and (of course) Rao, both Trump appointees. Now their decision will stand. Read it here: cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…

First decision: By a 5–3 vote, with Kavanaugh writing and Kagan recused, SCOTUS holds that NGOs' foreign affiliates have no First Amendment rights at all. So they can be forced to oppose sex work as a condition of receiving funds. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

In dissent, the liberals claim the majority misunderstood the case: This wasn't about the First Amendment rights of foreign NGOs, but the rights of American NGOs when they speak through foreign affiliates. Kavanaugh, they argue, framed the claim wrong.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

This decision has implications for Trump's global "gag rule" on medical providers who receive U.S. funding, which bars them from talking about abortion. It now seems likely SCOTUS would uphold the rule because, it claims, foreign groups have no First Amendment rights.

🚨SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LOUISIANA ABORTION RESTRICTIONS WITH ROBERTS JOINING THE LIBERALS IN A 5–4 DECISION supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Breyer writes the lead opinion for the four liberal justices. Roberts concurs in the judgment on grounds of stare decisis, finding that Whole Woman's Health (from which he dissented) obviously controls. Here is Roberts' kicker. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Two key aspects of Roberts' concurrence:

1. He suggests he might overrule Whole Woman's Health if a state explicitly asked him to.

2. He narrows WWH's holding, from a balancing test that weighs the burdens against the benefits to a more cramped "substantial obstacle" analysis.

Final opinion of the day: By a 5–4 vote, the conservatives rule that the CFPB's structure is unconstitutional—but sever the unlawful provision, allowing the agency to stand while permitting the president to fire its director for any reason. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Translation: If Biden wins in November, he can fire Trump's (terrible) CFPB director right after his inauguration rather than wait for her term to end in December 2023.

That's a pretty big upside for liberals.

Is Kagan the first justice to use "spoiler alert" and/or the first to cite Schoolhouse Rock? supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Today's decision in June Medical is, undoubtedly, a victory for reproductive rights advocates.

But while preserving the right to choose, Roberts simultaneously rolled back constitutional protections for abortion access. A chill wind still blows. slate.com/news-and-polit… @Slate

I can't get over the fact that the only justices who didn't write an opinion in June Medical, today's abortion decision, were the court's three women.

Kagan's CFPB dissent is brilliant top to bottom but her snarky little asides are maybe my favorite part. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Kagan, after summarizing Roberts' reasoning in the CFPB case:

"I’m tempted at this point just to say: No." supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…