BREAKING: SCOTUS reinstates remain in Mexico policy

[I’m not Stu]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Yes. It is possible to secretly dissent from an order or per curiam opinion. Dissents aren’t always made public.

[Donerail]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Your second paragraph is correct. You can't "secretly dissent" from an application for stay. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to grant the application for stay, the other six voted against doing so.

[I’m not Stu]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Your second paragraph is correct. You can't "secretly dissent" from an application for stay. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to grant the application for stay, the other six voted against doing so.

You actually can secretly dissent. Dissents don’t have to be made public.

[Donerail]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Your second paragraph is correct. You can't "secretly dissent" from an application for stay. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to grant the application for stay, the other six voted against doing so.

You actually can secretly dissent. Dissents don’t have to be made public.

That’s a written opinion, not a ministerial record of a denial of grant.

[David Hume]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.

Your second paragraph is correct. You can't "secretly dissent" from an application for stay. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to grant the application for stay, the other six voted against doing so.

You actually can secretly dissent. Dissents don’t have to be made public.

That’s a written opinion, not a ministerial record of a denial of grant.

This case is actually interesting. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a128_e1pf.pdf

Clearly Roberts and Kavanaugh voted with Thomas to grant the application. But in the first page, it only says "JUSTICE THOMAS would grant the application".

I thought as a description of the fact, it should list all justices that voted to grant, but this turns out not the case. If it can omit those who sign the dissent, it can also omit those who voted to grant but did not want to be added here for some reason.
In this case, I tend to believe that both Alito and Gorsuch voted with the liberals.