Thread by @chrisgeidner

Honestly, this jumble of a late-night ruling highlights the problems with the shadow docket on several grounds — not the least of which is the fact that Alito calls for a different outcome than Thomas and Gorsuch, but joins Gorsuch’s opinion?

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1357906988412329984

And here’s a related order: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

Here are the actual orders, which are, effectively, the same, aside from procedural posture.

Here are the side-orders. (I just made that up; I don’t think it has a name.) I get why they’re in the Harvest Rock (2nd) case, but given that there is a writing in the South Bay (1st) case, the only reason I see for this being up top is the fact that Alito differed from Gorsuch.

After spending way too much time on this, I actually think there is some confusion on what the votes were tonight. I don’t see any justice saying they oppose the 25% limit being applied to formerly purple Tier 1 churches ~under this case now~.
See this footnote from Gorsuch:

The dissenters say as much in Kagan’s dissent — although she goes on to focus on where this goes in other cases:

If anything — again, if I’m reading this correctly — Alito went the furthest on the capacity limits tonight: He is the only one who said he would potentially lift the capacity limits based on this case — although he’d give the state 30 days to prove they’re necessary.

The singing also is more complicated than I think others are saying! I think that’s 7-2 as to denying immediate relief, but 6-3 as to the reasoning, because while Alito agrees w/ Gorsuch (& thus Thomas) that it should be enjoined, he’d give that a 30-day stay as well.

The initial ruling against the total closure of indoor services was 6-3, though, I agree, with the three more liberal justices in dissent.