Thread by @chrisgeidner

Get ready. #SCOTUS opinions starting in less than 15 minutes.

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1400310338453753858

OK, I’m ready. Let’s do this. #SCOTUS

@thewydown There is only one opinion from #SCOTUS this morning: Van Buren v. US, about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Barrett has the majority 6-3 opinion, reversing the 11th Circuit and FOR the defendant in the case. Thomas, joined by Roberts and Alito, dissents.

Going to look through the decision, with this interesting new lineup, now. Here's the opinion. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

Pre-reading speculation: The "kids" — in #SCOTUS age terms — and the liberals get the internet?

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1400452747237855232

Congrats to @OrinKerr, getting that prominent, page 2 #SCOTUS citation. (And just one day into his 50s!)

This case serves as a great example of how broad federal criminal legislation often morphs and expands over time. (And duplicates existing state criminal statutes.)

The FBI apparently has enough time on its hands to spend all of this time and money to *create* criminal activity. (Which years later, so more time and money, is found by a very conservative Supreme Court to not even be criminal activity.)

[I know this isn't news to folks who know this stuff. But, we don't often get Republican-appointed judges laying it out so clearly.]

This section from Barrett's majority is stark. Her slicing-and-dicing of the dissent — which continues elsewhere — is some of her crispest writing since joining the Court.

And this part from Barrett, already referenced by others, is an important note about how much more broadly federal prosecutors and, at this point, the federal government were seeking to have criminal liability attach — beyond even the broad statute that Congress passed.

While Barrett's majority opinion is really impressive, it's also true that she was aided in writing an impressive majority by just how bad the dissent from Thomas is.