Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinions at 10 a.m. today.
The first decision is a unanimous ERISA pre-emption case (please don't make me describe the holding). Authored by Sotomayor, so we could get more decisions from any justice senior to her. Remember, opinions at released at 10 minute intervals these days. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
For those asking, we are not going to get any action on the deranged Texas lawsuit this morning. The defendant states will not reply until later today.
Decision #2: SCOTUS holds that the military can prosecute rapes committed between 1986 and 2006, finding no statute of limitations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 8–0 opinion by Alito. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
I tend to think Alito's interpretation of the relevant law is wrong—he acknowledges that "there are reasonable arguments on both sides"—and I'm surprised and disappointed that there were no dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Reminder: We will know when SCOTUS is done releasing opinions for the day because the "R-" column will only be filled in when the final opinion of the day is issued. supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipo… 
Opinion #3: SCOTUS bats away a challenge to the laws requiring partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans on Delaware's courts, finding the plaintiff had no standing. 8–0, authored by Breyer. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Sotomayor writes separately to say: Hey, when this issue comes back to us with a proper plaintiff, we should probably certify the big question of severability to the Delaware Supreme Court. (Sounds like a good idea to me.) supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The R- column isn't filled in yet, so we will get at least one more opinion today, from Breyer, Thomas, or Roberts!
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1337054487664529413
Those looking for a clarification of standing doctrine in Breyer's opinion today may not be pleased to learn that he calls this "a highly fact-specific case" and lists six facts that prove "in the context of the record" that the plaintiff suffered a mere "“generalized grievance."
Opinion #4, and last of the day: SCOTUS rules that plaintiffs who sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may obtain money damages from federal officials who violate their religious liberty. 8–0, opinion by Thomas.
This is big. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
This is big. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The same justices who routinely grant qualified immunity to law enforcement officers who brutalize civilians, locking their victims out of court, have now subjected federal officials to money damages when they violate an individual's religious liberty. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The facts in this case are compelling. But in light of the conservative majority's ever-expanding conception of "religious liberty," I am nervous that RFRA money damages will have a chilling effect on federal officials who enforce nondiscrimination laws. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Note: Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in any of today's four decisions because she had not yet joined the bench at the time of oral arguments. Also, all four decisions were 8–0.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
