BREAKING: SCOTUS reinstates remain in Mexico policy

[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?

[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.

[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.