So the Supreme Court as it comes to the end of the term has been issuing opinions Mondays and Thursdays. Next week they've moved to Monday-Wed-Friday. That could mean the final opinions come 6/25. But they could still spill over to the week of 6/28. 15 opinions to go!
15 opinion releases over 3 days is 5 per day, which is a LOT, especially in one. Some are more technical and small so it is possible. But 6/29 or even 6/28 and 6/29 seems possible for final SCOTUS opinions of the term.
The big cases I'm watching are about voting rights (Brnovich) and (indirectly) campaign finance disclosure (AFP v. Bonta).
The @UCILaw Supreme Court term in review event on July 6 is virtual, it's free, and it features some of the most important Supreme Court thinkers and advocates. But you MUST register to watch. calendar.law.uci.edu/event/11th_ann…
It could well be that clearing Fulton and the Obamacare case from the docket has freed up Justice Alito to focus on remaining term cases, where he is likely to write even if he's not assigned the majority. I expect him to write in both Brnovich and AFP.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Coming up on @npratc with @nprAudie at the top of the hour talking about the latest state voting laws and how the federal government might respond. Tune in!
Here's the link to my talk with @nprAudie@npratc about how the federal government can respond to state election laws that make it harder to vote and easier to manipulate election outcomes npr.org/2021/06/01/100…
When asked what the most important thing Joe Biden could do to protect voting rights and prevent election subversion, I said to get Joe Manchin in a room and figure out what he wants to not only support legislation but blow up filibuster for voting rights.
I meant there were lots of other voting rights groups in the fight before you (that are not associated with the Democratic Party) and that are doing excellent work.
Here's the link to the full Facebook decision, which requires Facebook to reexamine Trump's "indefinite" expulsion within 6 months and come up with a standard for a "proportionate" penalty. oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69… Perhaps permanent removal IS proportionate in this case.More soon
"If Facebook decides to restore Mr. Trump’s accounts, the company should apply its rules to that decision, including any changes made in response to the Board’s policy recommendations below. ...
"...In this scenario, Facebook must address any further violations promptly and in accordance with its established content policies. "
I'll be listening to the Supreme Court's argument in the AFP case, which may have major implications for the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws. Listen here: c-span.org/video/?510032-…
CJ Roberts out of the bat suggests skepticism of moving this analysis to "strict scrutiny." But in McCutcheon case, Roberts affirmed but redefined exacting scrutiny in contributions context to make it closer to strict scrutiny.
The level of scrutiny matters a lot because the stricter the scrutiny, the more likely the courts will strike down the law as an unconstitutional infringement on rights.
This @Nate_Cohn piece is a must-read, on the analytically distinct question of whether new laws like Georgia's allow for the subversion of election results, an analytically distinct question from voter suppression. /2 nytimes.com/2021/04/06/ups…
He writes: "trying to reverse an election result w/o credible evidence of widespread fraud is an act of a different magnitude than narrowing access.A successful effort to subvert an election wd pose grave&fundamental risks to democracy, risking political violence&secessionism."/3