SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term
politicallefty:
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.
politicallefty:
With more decisions in (though not yet at the halfway point), I think we can start reading the tea leaves.
Roberts finally finished his first majority opinion this week and it was from the March sitting, a unanimous decision dealing with tax law. (Interestingly, there was a Jackson concurrence that Gorsuch joined.) He's likely saving some big ones for himself. I have no doubt he's saving the affirmative action cases for himself.
The October sitting has only two cases left (Clean Water Act and Section 2 of the VRA) and three Justices (Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) who haven't written. No chance for the left winning those cases. I can see Roberts taking either one for himself.
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
That leaves the February sitting to discuss. With only six cases (really four when you consider the issues), the leaves aren't going to say much. The big one remaining is student loan forgiveness. We can likely rule out Thomas and Kavanaugh as they have both written for that sitting (I don't know how to count per curiam or if it does). In other words, it looks like we're not going to have much of an idea before the opinion is actually released. I have a feeling it's going to be either Roberts, Kagan, or Barrett. I'm worried about a Roberts opinion, thrilled about a Kagan opinion, and have no idea what to make of a Barrett opinion.
If I had to guess right now, I think Gorsuch has 303 Creative and either Roberts or Kavanaugh has Moore (probably the former, unless it's mooted by then). I am concerned how little Alito has written so far. I think he probably has the remaining January case due to his hatred of unions. The October cases offer no hope for the left.
Ferguson97:
Quote from: politicallefty on May 21, 2023, 12:57:31 AM
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
So dumb question, what happens if a justice just always dissents from the majority? They just don't get an opportunity to write for the majority?
Vosem:
Quote from: Ferguson97 on May 25, 2023, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: politicallefty on May 21, 2023, 12:57:31 AM
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
So dumb question, what happens if a justice just always dissents from the majority? They just don't get an opportunity to write for the majority?
Yeah, that's what would happen (and I think historically this happened some terms to ultra-right-wing judge James McReynolds, who was on the Court from 1914-1941), but this is unlikely to come up in the modern day. An overwhelming majority of cases are either 9-0 or 8-1, even in the most controversial terms. Judges who are in the minority more often (nowadays, the liberal three) would just get assigned more of the non-controversial opinions.
On the current court, all the judges are in the majority on most cases -- Sotomayor is the most frequent dissenter but she still agrees with 58% of the opinions. For someone not to have enough cases, they'd have to agree with the court on less than 1/9 -- 11% -- of cases; that's kind of insane and just doesn't reflect how the institution works.
Buffalo Mayor Young Kim:
I’d just like to call everyone’s attention to
Sackett vs. EPA
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Today in a 5-4 the ‘Orginalsits’ and ‘Textualists’ of the Supreme Court have decided that the plain text word adjacent, explicitly inserted into the statue to clarify the standard was ‘adjacent’ and no say ‘adjoining’ actually means ‘adjoining’.
Just to remind everyone that the SC Justices are playing Calvin ball in their actual rulings, and Originalism and Textualism aren’t actual doctrines they adhere to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page