The Supreme Court's first opinion of the day is in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Majority opinion by Barrett. There will be more opinions! supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Letting @LeahLitman summarize this holding because I did not follow the case, which involves a securities fraud class action.
The Supreme Court's second decision of the day is in NCAA v. Alston. In an opinion by Gorsuch, the court *unanimously* upholds the district court's injunction against the NCAA based on "established anti-trust principles"! This is a big deal. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
!!! In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh argues that *other* NCAA restrictions on student-athlete compensation and benefits—which are not at issue in this case—may also violate anti-trust law! supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Gorsuch: The NCAA "seeks immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws." But the court declines its request, noting that "this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
There will be at least one more opinion, which could come from any justice except Barrett or Kavanaugh.
Last paragraph of Kavanaugh's concurrence:
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their
workers a fair market rate. ... The NCAA is not above the law."
The Supreme Court's FINAL decision on the day is un U.S. v. Arthrex, which has a very messy breakdown. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Remarkably, THOMAS, joined by the three liberals, dissents, arguing that the Appointments Clause does not require Senate confirmation of "officers inferior to
not one, but two officers below the President." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The upshot in Arthrex is (1) the Secretary of Commerce's appointment of judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutional, and (2) the remedy is that the director of the Patent and Trademark Office must be able to review the Board's decisions.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Arthrex is a prime example of how a 6–3 conservative majority makes a big difference. Thomas disagreed with the rest of the conservatives, and if RBG were still alive, this likely would've been a 5–4 decision going the other way. But picking off one conservative isn't enough.
Kavanaugh floats collective bargaining for student athletes (!!!) as a potential remedy for (what he sees as) the NCAA's widespread anti-trust violations. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The seamless expansion of same-day registration to so many states proves that there is no legitimate reason to cut off voter registration before Election Day, let alone a full month before. Registration deadlines are just a pretext to prevent less engaged citizens from voting.
In many states, you can walk up to the polls on Election Day, register to vote, and cast your ballot. In other states, you have to register up to a full month before Election Day. The only difference is that the first group of states wants people to vote and the second does not.
Same-day registration also protects voters against administrative errors and unlawful purges that cancel their active status shortly before an election. In Virginia, for instance, citizens wrongfully purged by Youngkin can re-register at the polls through Election Day.
NEW: A far-right panel of the 5th Circuit rules that it is *illegal* for states to count ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day.
BUT: The 5th Circuit decision only applies to Mississippi, the one state within the circuit that counts ballots received after Election Day.
The 5th Circuit is trying to tee up a Supreme Court decision to strike down ballot laws in many other states, too. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
The 5th Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Mississippi's law, but declared it illegal and ordered the district court to issue an appropriate remedy. Nobody knows what that will look like! Confusion will now reign. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
The Supreme Court also sends NINE Chevron cases back down to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright. The disruption officially begins: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court vacates an 8th Circuit decision that had granted North Dakota lawmakers a "legislative privilege" from discovery in an important Native redistricting case, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the dispute has become moot. (KBJ dissents.) supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Sotomayor, dissenting: Today's decision shields presidents from prosecution "for criminal and treasonous acts" and "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's second decision is NetChoice. Justice Kagan's complicated opinion for the court remands both cases to the appeals courts for the proper analysis of a First Amendment facial challenge, which, she says, they flunked the first time. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
HOWEVER: Kagan's opinion for the court holds that content moderation IS "expressively activity" and that social media platforms ARE protected by the First Amendment, no matter their size, from state intrusion. That's a major holding. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Kagan says social media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating content posted by third parties, and Texas' alleged interest in interfering with that practice amounts to the "suppression of free expression, and it is not valid" under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's first decision is Corner Post. By a 6–3 vote, the majority allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
This article explains why today's outcome in Corner Post will be so destabilizing to the administrative state—it means that agency actions are never really safe from legal assault, even decades after they're finalized. It's a really big deal. americanprogress.org/article/corner…
In her dissent, Justice Jackson urges Congress to enact a new law to "forestall the coming chaos" created by today's decision, reimposing the statute of limitations that had, until now, prevented new plaintiffs from endlessly challenging regulations. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…