The Supreme Court takes up two new cases involving free speech and immigration and issues two per curiam decisions. Full order list here: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS' new cases are Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (another First Amendment case about sign regulations!) and Patel v. Garland (limited to question 1 below), which sounds like a @ReichlinMelnick case. The court will hear these cases next term. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Here's the big news: In what appears to be a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court *reverses* an 8th Circuit decision that found officers used no excessive force when they killed someone using brutal tactics reminiscent of George Floyd's murder. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissents, saying he would schedule the case for oral arguments rather than summarily reverse the 8th Circuit. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS also says administrative exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite for a takings claim, reversing the 9th Circuit. No noted dissents. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Clarence Thomas says the federal ban on marijuana is likely unconstitutional, faulting the government for maintaining a "contradictory and unstable state of affairs" that "strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary." supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Thomas' basic point is that when SCOTUS upheld the federal ban on marijuana in Raich, the federal government actually prohibited weed. Now the government lets states run robust marijuana markets, which undermines its constitutional authority to maintain its putative ban.
And finally, we have Justice Sotomayor dissenting from the denial of a petition raising a pretty serious Sixth Amendment claim. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Sorry, I should've said "vacates" here, not "reverses." The 8th Circuit's decision is vacated. Mea culpa!
Gavin Grimm's case is over, and he won. The Supreme Court declined to review the 4th Circuit's decision in his favor. Only Alito and Thomas noted their dissents (meaning they would've taken the case). supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As @ClaraJeffery has pointed out, RCV is ***not*** the reason for the delayed results in New York. RCV does not delay results. The wait is due to other factors, particularly a grace period for late-arriving ballots. Lowry's criticism is extreme bad faith. fairvote.org/ranked_choice_…
Also, to claim that ranked choice voting somehow delays election results is to reveal that you have no fucking idea how ranked choice voting actually works. What absolute inanity. If he has the capacity for shame, which I doubt, Rich Lowry should be ashamed of himself.
What do conservatives think they have to gain by lying about ranked choice voting, anyway? It doesn't have a partisan valence. Or is this just another phase of their ongoing campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of any election a Republican doesn't win?
The Supreme Court's FIRST decision of the day is in Minerva Surgical v. Hologic. It's a 5–4 decision, with Kagan writing the opinion for the court upholding and "clarifying" assignor estoppel.
While both Alito and Barrett dissented, they did so on very different grounds, and argued with each other over (among other things) what Scalia would've done in this case. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
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…
The Supreme Court's FIRST opinion of the day is Lange v. California. In an opinion by Kagan, the court holds that pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically justify a warrantless entry into the home.
Yikes, though: KAVANAUGH joins the portion of Thomas' concurrence sharply criticizing the exclusionary rule and asserting that it never applies to evidence illegally obtained in "cases of fleeing suspects." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The vote breakdown in Lange is pretty interesting, but both Kagan and Kavanaugh question whether Roberts' Fourth Amendment analysis is actually different, in practice, from the majority's. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
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…