SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term

[afleitch]

Wow

https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1674411839604633600

https://twitter.com/melissagira/status/1674395693249642499

[politicallefty]

In other news, Groff was unanimous, with a concurrence by Sotomayor (joined by Jackson). The de minimis standard is no more. In its place is the following:

Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

The standard is clearly changed, but it doesn't look to be too sweeping.

[Lambsbread]

Wow

https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1674411839604633600

https://twitter.com/melissagira/status/1674395693249642499

LMAO WHAT

[Ferguson97]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

[politicallefty]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

Yeah, that's crazy if true. As for your question, SCOTUS can pretty much do whatever it wants.

[Lambsbread]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

[Torie]

So, uh, is it just me or does the Roberts opinion basically say that, while colleges cannot use race, they can continue to use metrics that are correlated with race, and a particular metric he might approve of is rewarding 'unique skills' which some particular race is likelier to have than another?

That feels like a recipe for a generation of amazing Asian-American soul food chefs to come into existence. More generally, I think if this decision is both taken seriously and there's no large-scale crackdown on woke institutional decision-making, I think we're going to see some amazing examples of Goodhart's Law in action.

The main impact will be to end the quota on the number of Asians I suspect.

A case might come back in the future if essays on overcoming the barriers to being black or Hispanic systematically work to admit, but essays about overcoming the barriers of class do not.  It will be hard for SCOTUS to avoid a redux, since I suspect over time the circuits will split as to whether the workarounds to preserve diversity are legal or not.

Addendum: It would be fun for Asians to test the system, and start writing essays about overcoming the barriers created by being Asian.

[Vosem]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

Legitimately, no, appellate courts like SCOTUS may not take new evidence that was not introduced at the level of the lower court. They may only review legal procedures. After-discovered evidence can be used to file a motion for a new trial, particularly in criminal cases, but you would start from the bottom all over again. You cannot submit after-discovered evidence to SCOTUS (or for that matter to any of the circuit courts).

[Skill and Chance]

[quote[i][/i] author=soundchaser link=topic=540767.msg9118754#msg9118754 date=1688047344 uid=20823]
Alito has both Abitron and Groff. Could Sotomayor have Nebraska???
[/quote]

Well, if it’s liberals +Kavanaugh and Barrett to denying standing, she be the most senior.

[Donerail]

Alito has both Abitron and Groff. Could Sotomayor have Nebraska???

Well, if it’s liberals +Kavanaugh and Barrett to denying standing, she be the most senior.

Seems more like Sotomayor lost her majority in Abitron — four-vote concurrence in the judgment that's slightly longer than the majority opinion. Might be why it took so long to release.

[politicallefty]

Alito has both Abitron and Groff. Could Sotomayor have Nebraska???

Well, if it’s liberals +Kavanaugh and Barrett to denying standing, she be the most senior.

Seems more like Sotomayor lost her majority in Abitron — four-vote concurrence in the judgment that's slightly longer than the majority opinion. Might be why it took so long to release.

That's interesting if true because some seem to think Alito might have lost his majority in Mallory (which happens to be one of the strangest breakdowns we've seen with this current Court).

I think it could easily be anyone that didn't already write for February, though it seems like it's still most likely to be Roberts.

[Ferguson97]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

Legitimately, no, appellate courts like SCOTUS may not take new evidence that was not introduced at the level of the lower court. They may only review legal procedures. After-discovered evidence can be used to file a motion for a new trial, particularly in criminal cases, but you would start from the bottom all over again. You cannot submit after-discovered evidence to SCOTUS (or for that matter to any of the circuit courts).

Seems like a massive oversight.

[afleitch]

Wow, the made-up case is even more made-up? What a shock.

SCOTUS cannot in good conscience release its decision with this new information. Is there a mechanism for them to say "whoa hold on we gotta re-argue this"?

Legitimately, no, appellate courts like SCOTUS may not take new evidence that was not introduced at the level of the lower court. They may only review legal procedures. After-discovered evidence can be used to file a motion for a new trial, particularly in criminal cases, but you would start from the bottom all over again. You cannot submit after-discovered evidence to SCOTUS (or for that matter to any of the circuit courts).

Seems like a massive oversight.

Clearly :/

[Blue3]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1674431232762081286?s=46&t=fXGbuzJ5t_x...

[Sestak]

So, uh, is it just me or does the Roberts opinion basically say that, while colleges cannot use race, they can continue to use metrics that are correlated with race, and a particular metric he might approve of is rewarding 'unique skills' which some particular race is likelier to have than another?

That feels like a recipe for a generation of amazing Asian-American soul food chefs to come into existence. More generally, I think if this decision is both taken seriously and there's no large-scale crackdown on woke institutional decision-making, I think we're going to see some amazing examples of Goodhart's Law in action.

This is a Roberts opiniof

[Blue3]

So with all this talk of individual achievement… did they ban “Legacy” considerations for college admissions too?

If you are blind to race, you are blind to racism.

[Vosem]

So with all this talk of individual achievement… did they ban “Legacy” considerations for college admissions too?

No, but this case didn't challenge the constitutionality of legacy admissions. Colleges that receive federal funding are prohibited from taking into account 'race, color, or national origin', as per Title VI (but interestingly this does not extend to 'religion' or 'sex', which are brought up in Title VII). I think if you take kind of a Gorsuch-ian view to the meaning of the word 'race', you can extend it to mean 'family origin' -- families are micro-races in a certain sense -- but I don't think its authors intended it to be read that way, or that it was the most logical way for that to be read. (There is maybe a Due Process or Equal Protection challenge somewhere, though.)

If you are blind to race, you are blind to racism.

No. The solution to racism is to make everyone blind to race, and then no one can be racist. We should look into safe applications of those chemicals that cause colorblindness when you get them into your eyes; eventually, we can be safe from the scourge of racism forever.

[Lambsbread]

So...student loan decision tomorrow then?

[politicallefty]

So...student loan decision tomorrow then?

Yep. That and 303 Creative are all that remain for this term.

[2016]

Student Loan Executive Order by President Biden will almost certainly striked down by the SCOTUS tomorrow. I'd be surprised if they let that stay.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Student Loan Executive Order by President Biden will almost certainly striked down by the SCOTUS tomorrow. I'd be surprised if they let that stay.

It's considered a lot more of a jump ball after oral arguments than it had been before, because Kav and ACB seemed skeptical of the idea that the people who want the program voided have standing, but we'll see. Either brucejoel or HSTruman, I forget who, pointed out on Discord that it's remarkable how most people take it as a given that these hacks will void the program if they reach the merits, since traditionally what people sue for when they're left out of a government program is, you know, damages, not a deranged crab-bucket "remedy" of disadvantaging other people the way they've been disadvantaged. I also noted this up-thread.

303 Creative is almost certainly going to be another win for this Court's maximalist free exercise jurisprudence; the question is just how much of a win.

[Vosem]

So, uh, is it just me or does the Roberts opinion basically say that, while colleges cannot use race, they can continue to use metrics that are correlated with race, and a particular metric he might approve of is rewarding 'unique skills' which some particular race is likelier to have than another?

That feels like a recipe for a generation of amazing Asian-American soul food chefs to come into existence. More generally, I think if this decision is both taken seriously and there's no large-scale crackdown on woke institutional decision-making, I think we're going to see some amazing examples of Goodhart's Law in action.

This is a Roberts opiniof

https://twitter.com/EndingBigly/status/1674424655778807814

[2016]

Student Loan Executive Order by President Biden will almost certainly striked down by the SCOTUS tomorrow. I'd be surprised if they let that stay.

It's considered a lot more of a jump ball after oral arguments than it had been before, because Kav and ACB seemed skeptical of the idea that the people who want the program voided have standing, but we'll see. Either brucejoel or HSTruman, I forget who, pointed out on Discord that it's remarkable how most people take it as a given that these hacks will void the program if they reach the merits, since traditionally what people sue for when they're left out of a government program is, you know, damages, not a deranged crab-bucket "remedy" of disadvantaging other people the way they've been disadvantaged. I also noted this up-thread.

303 Creative is almost certainly going to be another win for this Court's maximalist free exercise jurisprudence; the question is just how much of a win.

The Student Loan Programme seems pretty clear cut to me. President Biden doesn't posses the legal Authority to do what he did last 2022. No matter if you like the Plan or not on legal grounds alone it should be struck down.

[2016]

SCOTUS blocks President Bidens Student Loan Program as I expect they would!

Biden did not have the legal authority to do this!

[Vosem]

An interesting final affirmative action note linking the issue to broader politics: there has probably theoretically been an anti-AA majority on the Court ever since Roberts replaced O'Connor, so 2005. (Kennedy, who was anti-AA historically and personally dissented in Grutter, did join the pro-AA plurality in Fisher, but this was almost certainly to avoid a situation where an explosive decision was made through plurality, since it happened to be the case that that case reached the court during the Scalia vacancy period). But a mixture of certain Justices not necessarily being very enthusiastic about striking down AA (clearly Kennedy and Kavanaugh both dislike the issue) and bad luck for conservatives with when cases were heard (Fisher would obviously have won a year earlier or later) meant that it took 18 full years before the obvious thing was done.

I wonder how much this generalizes.