Thread by @gabrielmalor

This is an interesting read, but commentators are failing to grapple with just how unusual the present posture of this case is and how novel SB8 is as a legal instrument specifically designed to avoid pre-enforcement review.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1433157246377152518

In other words, I don't think SCOTUS is going to be silent or indifferent on the procedural issues here. I bet that's why it's taking so long.

And those procedural problems come *before* we even get to the question of just what this SCOTUS is going to do with Casey/June Medical.

Too much of the commentary is skipping to: is Roe going to be overturned (even though they mean Casey and June Medical).

When there's a whole mess of procedural issues to resolve before we get to the underlying abortion question.

And, again, that was done *intentionally* to prevent the usual pre-enforcement challenges that have knocked down other fetal heartbeat laws.

I don't think they can stay the law on this case's procedural posture. Who can SCOTUS enjoin? Every citizen inside the state? Forget about it. Every judge? They're nonparties.

And I expect the delay is because we're getting some heated dissents and possibly concurring ops.

https://twitter.com/JustinLawGuy/status/1433167044137168901

So I expect to see something like

Per curiam: the application is denied; applicants have not demonstrated that an injunction will remedy the harm complained of.

J. Alito, concurring, arguing against dissent's claim that the majority is ignoring Casey/June Medical.

Sotomayor, dissenting, arguing the majority is ignoring Casey/June Medical.

Oh, and look for at least one of the justices (maybe both sides!) to rely on the novel circumstance with SB8 as one reason for justifying their view.