I thought this could be a thread to discuss the current Supreme Court term, particularly cases that fly under the radar that might interest people here.
I was inspired by the decision just released in Bittner v. United States. It's a rather dry case at first glance, involving the Bank Secrecy Act. The law involves a penalty for non-willful failure to file an annual form. The penalty is $10,000. The majority ruled that the statute be read as $10,000 per (annual) report. The dissent argued that the $10,000 penalty was per account. So, if one had 272 foreign accounts, one can do the math.
I was most intrigued by the breakdown in this case. The decision was written by Justice Gorusch and joined by Justice Jackson in full. All but one part was joined by Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh. The dissent was written by Justice Barrett, joined by Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
That's a very strange breakdown, to say the least. The part that Justice Jackson joined and the others did not involved the rule of lenity. It's not the first time I've seen Justice Gorsuch invoke that rule. However, I do recall that being a dissent that was joined by Justice Sotomayor.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the majority here. I also think the rule of lenity should be more widely adopted as I think it's a fundamental aspect of due process.
You shouldn't be so surprised, because you and many others should stop assuming that Supreme Court Justices almost always base their decisions on their ideology. It *often* happens that way, but not always. "It was never altogether realistic to conclude that behind all judicial dialectic there was personal preference and personal power and nothing else." (Alexander Bickel, "The Least Dangerous Branch," page 80, (1962).)
~~~
Abolish the Supreme Court.
Also known as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Coming from you, I'm not surprised.
