The Supreme Court's FIRST opinion of the day is in TransUnion. It's another 5–4 decision with Thomas joining the liberals in dissent—the second of the week!
In an opinion by Kavanaugh, the court finds that most members of the class suing TransUnion for Fair Credit Reporting Act violations do not have standing.
These decisions don't make the headlines, but they illustrate the far-reaching impact of a 6–3 conservative majority. Thomas has twice peeled off from the conservative bloc to join the liberals, but it doesn't matter because, well, Amy Coney Barrett. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan, dissenting: Kavanaugh's opinion "transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a tool of judicial aggrandizement." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
I know this sounds very strange, but Justice Thomas has really been on fire lately. His opinions in Arthrex, Collins v. Yellen, California v. Texas, and, today, TransUnion are all fascinating and persuasive. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court's SECOND decision of the day is in HollyFrontier Cheyenne v. Renewable Fuels. There's a first time for everything: Barrett dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, and lineup we've never seen before. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
There will be more decisions.
In HollyFrontier, which breaks down to men vs. women, the Supreme Court says a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption can still obtain a hardship "extension" if its exemption coverage lapsed in a previous year.
In dissent, Barrett, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, says the EPA cannot "extend" an exemption that a refinery no longer has. Gorsuch vs. Barrett on an arcane question of statutory interpretation ... some sickos out there are going to LOVE this. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court's third and FINAL decision of the day is in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that Alaska Native Corporations ARE eligible for funds under the CARES Act! Gorsuch, Thomas, and ... Kagan ... dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
No blockbusters—IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE—from the Supreme Court today, but three decisions with wild lineups:
1. Thomas joins the liberals in dissent. 2. Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent together. 3. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kagan dissent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the rule, created and enforced by heterosexual white men on this website *every damn day,* that your legal opinion is invalid if it arises from strongly held principles: repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten…
This is crucial. When <certain male commentators> want to police criticism of the judiciary, they often accuse critics of failing to understand some arcane aspect of the law—framing them as overly emotional amateurs who can't roll with the big boys. repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten…
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…
BREAKING: The Supreme Court throws out the challenge to Obamacare, holding the plaintiffs all lack standing: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Breyer writes for the court, holding that the states and the individual plaintiffs lack standing. Only Alito and Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Alito, joined by Gorsuch, would hold that (1) the individual mandate is now unconstitutional, and (2) large portions of the ACA must essentially fall with it, becoming "unenforceable" against the state plaintiffs here. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s) at 10 a.m. In the meantime, you might be interested to read about how the conservative legal movement's opposition to nationwide injunctions seems to have evaporated upon Joe Biden's inauguration! slate.com/news-and-polit…
While bad-faith trolls may miss this point, what's fascinating is that conservative judges barely even bother to justify their nationwide injunctions. This judge, for instance, provided one sentence of conclusory reasoning after claiming to "disfavor" nationwide injunctions.
By performatively wringing their hands over nationwide injunctions—then issuing them anyway with the thinnest, most conclusory reasoning—conservative judges are trying to have it both ways: Get credit for questioning nationwide injunctions while handing them out willy-nilly.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I am truly baffled by the seemingly widespread belief that a Republican-controlled Senate will ever again confirm a Democratic president's Supreme Court nominee. It's just not going to happen. Not in your lifetime, not in mine, not in anyone's.
Taking this a step further, I'm not convinced a Republican-controlled Senate will ever confirm another Democratic president's appeals court nominees, either. *Maybe* a tiny handful, but as a rule, Republicans will hold those seats open. They've all but admitted as much!
Democrats should assume that if Republicans win the Senate in 2022, they will refuse to confirm any of Biden's nominees to the courts of appeals or the Supreme Court. It'll be like the 2015-2016 blockade—but worse, because of what Republicans have gotten away with in the interim.
Greer v. U.S. is an 8–1 decision with Sotomayor dissenting in part.👇
Style nerds will note that Kavanaugh does not divide his opinion into sections, as is customary, but simply writes it like a long essay, presumably because it's short (11 pages). supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Because Kavanaugh went first this morning, the next opinion(s) could come from any justice except Barrett, as they're issued in order of reverse seniority.