Remaining #SCOTUS cases to be decided today:
1. Trump criminal immunity.
2. Pair of NetChoice cases presenting First Amendment challenge to state content-moderation requirements for social media.
3. Corner Post v. Federal Reserve--when does cause of action against agency accrue? Look for Trump immunity ruling to be issued last, as it is likely written by Chief.

New from Confirmation Tales: 58-42 confirmation of Samuel Alito in 2006 is exact converse of Robert Bork's defeat in 1987. I take a look at what happened in the intervening two decades to account for the shift. 1/
confirmationtales.com/p/58-42 The easy answer is that Senate that defeated Bork had a 54-seat Democratic majority and that Senate that confirmed Alito nomination had a 55-seat Republican majority. That easy answer obscures an important development that helps explain *why* Republicans controlled the Senate for the Alito nomination: Republicans were winning the political battle over judicial philosophy. 2/
confirmationtales.com/p/58-42

So here we go again. #SCOTUS rulings beginning in a minute or so. Today's #SCOTUS rulings:
1. City of Grant Pass v. Johnson: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. 6-3. Gorsuch majority. Libs dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

#SCOTUS rulings today:
1. Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency: The applications for a stay are granted; enforcement of EPA’s rule against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought.
Gorsuch majority, 5-4. ACB with libs in dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… #SCOTUS rulings today:
2. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma: The bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.
Gorsuch majority, 5-4. Kavanaugh dissents, joined by Chief, SS, Kagan. Very cross-ideological.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

#SCOTUS rulings today:
1. Murthy v. Missouri: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. 6-3, ACB majority, SAA, CT, Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… Alito dissent in Murthy: For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

Supreme Court is now showing Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday as announcement days. Good bet that it will finish term on Friday. There are 14 cases that remain to be decided. But that includes two pairs of cases (Moody/NetChoice and Relentless/Loper Bright) that might each be decided as one. So perhaps 12 sets of opinions to come, perhaps 4-4-4 on W-Th-F.

#SCOTUS opinions today:
1. Texas v. New Mexico: Because the proposed consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the States’ motion to enter consent decree is denied. KBJ majority, 5-4. Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… 2. Department of State v. Munoz: A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. ACB majority, 5-1-3. Gorsuch concurs in judgment. Libs dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

#SCOTUS rulings today:
1. Moore v. US: The MRT—which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income—does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. Kavanugh majority. 7-2 on result. CT, Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… #SCOTUS rulings today:
Moore: Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.

New in Confirmation Tales: "John Kerry Yodels for Alito Filibuster"
Inspired by Otter in Animal House, Kerry decides that battle against Alito nomination absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture. 1/
confirmationtales.com/p/john-kerry-y… Democratic leader Harry Reid recognized that there was no point in fighting a losing battle on a filibuster of Alito. Such a battle would pit Democrats against each other. 2/
confirmationtales.com/p/john-kerry-y…

Today's #SCOTUS opinions:
1. United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons: Prospective parity is the appropriate remedy for the short-lived and small disparity created by the fee statute held unconstitutional in Siegel. (Whatever that means.) KBJ 6-3 majority. Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett dissent.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… 2. Campos-Chaves v. Garland: Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Alito majority. 5-4, with Gorsuch joining libs in dissent.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

Some comments on today's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on standing in FDA abortion-pill case.
1. Ruling is no surprise. Court telegraphed result way back in April 2023, when it took extraordinary action of staying district-court ruling through entirety of appellate process. This was even before Fifth Circuit ruled on merits. So Court clearly had grave concerns about standing. No recorded dissent. 2. Widespread claim that Court ruling "ensures access" to abortion pill is wrong in two large respects: (a) States have authority to bar abortion, including via abortion pill. FDA approval is just a federal permission slip. It doesn't override state laws. (b) Federal Comstock Act itself criminalizes sending abortion drugs by mail or common carrier. And that's true irrespective whether the abortion that drug is being used for is lawful or unlawful under state law. (To be sure, others contest these points. It's enough to say here that today's ruling doesn't speak to these questions.)
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/am…

#SCOTUS rulings today:
1. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (abortion-pill case): Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge FDA’s actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone. Kavanaugh opinion. Unanimous. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… Result in FDA case was foretold by Court's grant of emergency stay even before Fifth Circuit ruled.

New from Confirmation Tales: Ted Kennedy’s CAP Attack on Alito Backfires
Ted Kennedy was a man of excesses, rhetorical and otherwise. He was determined to defeat George W. Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito, but his over-the-top attack on Alito's membership in Conservative Alumni of Princeton boomeranged against him. 1/

confirmationtales.com/p/ted-kennedys… Alito’s father was brought to this country as an infant and grew up in poverty. His mother was born to Italian immigrants.
Alito joined Army ROTC at Princeton. In May 1970, the spring of his sophomore year, two students firebombed Princeton’s ROTC facility. That same spring, Princeton decided to kick ROTC off campus. During his senior year, Alito had to travel to Trenton State College to finish his ROTC courses.
Princeton had long had a set of elite and exclusive eating clubs for upperclassmen. Those eating clubs remained all-male after women were admitted to Princeton in Alito’s sophomore year. Alito did not seek entry into any of those eating clubs. Instead, he took his meals at a university facility open to all students.
Idea that Alito joined CAP to restore a Princeton that wouldn't have him, rather than because of its support of ROTC, was farfetched. But that was Kennedy's attack. 2/
confirmationtales.com/p/ted-kennedys…

New in Confirmation Tales: "The Umpire Strikes Back: John Roberts's apt baseball simile."

“Judges are like umpires.” Among the hundreds of thousands of words spoken by senators, witnesses, and John Roberts himself across the four days of his confirmation hearing in September 2005, those four words uttered by Roberts in his opening statement stood out. 1/

confirmationtales.com/p/the-umpire-s… In his statement explaining why he would vote against Roberts’s confirmation, then-senator Barack Obama provided his contrary account of what judging consists of, an empathy standard embedded in a remarkably clumsy marathon metaphor. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/the-umpire-s…

New from Confirmation Tales: "Fishing for John Roberts's Executive-Branch Records: A justice delayed could become a justice denied" 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/fishing-for-… If you’re working to defeat a Supreme Court nomination, you will try to dig up all the negative stuff you can find about the nominee, and you will seek as much time as possible for your digging. For Senate Democrats in 2005, John Roberts’s years as a lawyer in the executive branch provided an obvious opportunity. “We’re not looking to go on a fishing expedition,” declared Senator Teddy Kennedy, as he packed his tackle box. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/fishing-for-…

Apologies for wrong first report. Unanimous ruling in favor of Trump. Liberal justices concur in judgment. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf… Per curiam majority (5 justices): Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

ACB, concurring in part, concurring in judgment: No need to address whether federal legislation is exclusive vehicle.

3 liberal justices concurring in judgment: Similar to ACB.

My new Confirmation Tales post: "John Roberts's Gay-Rights Surprise: A revelation that would have prevented his nomination doesn't disrupt it." 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/john-roberts… The same piece of information about a candidate/nominee can have dramatically different impact depending on when it surfaces. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/john-roberts…

New from Confirmation Tales: Controversy in 2005 over whether Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had ever been a member of Federalist Society. 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/roberts-fede… In effort to make path to confirmation as smooth as possible, White House raced to correct widespread reports that John Roberts had been a member of Federalist Society. His involvement, it said, consisted of “speaking at Federalist Society forums (as have lawyers and legal scholars of various political stripes.” But never a dues-paying member. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/roberts-fede…

Will run long thread here of today's oral argument. Here's my guide to what to listen for.

Oral argument is set to start at 10, but with opinion(s) being announced probably won't start until 10:05 or 10:10. 80 minutes are allotted, but Court has been *very* generous with time, so expect argument to go double that. My guess is that it will end some time between 12:30 and 1:00.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/a-… First up will be counsel for Trump, Jonathan Mitchell. Then two counsel on the other side, one for private plaintiffs, one for the Colorado secretary of state. Then a rebuttal round for Mitchell. So four separate turns at the podium.

Amazed to learn that three federal district judges in Illinois commit to grant requests for oral argument on any matter if a party says that it intends to have a "newer, female, or minority attorney" argue the motion. Blatant discrimination on basis of sex and race.

Three Federal Judges Grant Oral Argument Based on Sex and Race of Attorneys nationalreview.com/bench-memos/th… These same judges also say they will "strongly consider allocating [additional] time for oral argument" to newer, female, or minority attorneys.

Imagine if the Supreme Court said "30 minutes per side, except if you tell us that your attorney is a novice, a woman, or a minority, we'll strongly consider giving you more time." Oh, "and we'll also let you have "more experienced counsel" help you out.

nationalreview.com/bench-memos/th…

In my new Confirmation Tales post, I look at huge advantage that 2004 Senate victories gave George W. Bush in filling Supreme Court vacancies that arose in 2005. 1/
confirmationtales.com/p/2004-senate-… If SCOTUS vacancy had arisen in Bush's first term, he would have had much tougher time on Senate confirmation. But 55-45 margin coming out of 2004 elections meant he had plenty of room to get a strong conservative nominee confirmed. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/2004-senate-…