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!

There will be more opinion(s). supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… Image
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.

Thomas is not happy!
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… Image
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… Image
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… Image
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… Image
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… Image
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… Image
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
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

22 Jun
There is SO MUCH wisdom and fire in @LeahLitman @ProfMMurray and @kateashaw1's new law review article, but this passage in particular really spoke to me (and identifies a problem I am trying to be conscious of): repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten…
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…
Read 6 tweets
21 Jun
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…
Read 13 tweets
17 Jun
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… Image
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… Image
Read 13 tweets
17 Jun
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. Image
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. Image
Read 4 tweets
14 Jun
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.
Read 4 tweets
14 Jun
The Supreme Court's FIRST decision of the day is in Greer v. United States. Opinion by Kavanaugh.

There will be more decisions! supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… Image
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… ImageImage
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.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(