SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term

[kelestian]

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 5-4. Majority written by Kavanaugh. Gorsuch joins the liberals in the dissent.

"The court holds that the treaty at issue does not require the federal government to take the affirmative steps that the Navajo Nation contends."
Pugin v. Garland, 6-3 (but not the breakdown you're expecting). Kavanaugh writes the majority again. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Gorsuch. Jackson joins the conservatives.

"The court holds that an offense can "relate to obstruction of justice" for purposes of this statute even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding is pending."
6-3, Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. Majority written by Sotomayor. Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

"This was a case involving two Russian citizens, in which the question was whether a foreign plaintiff whose only injury was to intangible property – such as a court judgment – has suffered the kind of domestic injury required to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff had alleged a domestic injury, and the Supreme Court today upheld that ruling."
6-3, Jones v. Hendrix. Majority written by Thomas. Liberals dissent.

"This was a case filed by a federal inmate, Marcus Jones, who in 2000 was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute under which Jones was convicted requires prosecutors to show that the defendant knew that he was barred from possessing a gun – something that the government did not do for Jones, who contended that he believed that his record had been expunged. The question before the court was whether and how Jones can now challenge his detention when federal habeas corpus laws generally prohibit inmates from filing more than one petition for habeas corpus.

The court holds that Jones cannot proceed under 28 USC 2241, the general habeas corpus statute."

[This is the final opinion of the day]

Saw a lot of buzz about the last one on Twitter. Can someone explain this case for dummies?

[Vosem]

It was never going to be Thomas on affirmative action; Thomas's position is that using race to create government policy is only acceptable in order to prevent imminent violence (from his concurrence in Fisher II):

I explained that “only those measures the State must take to provide a bulwark against anarchy, or to prevent violence, will constitute a ‘pressing public necessity’ ” sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny. Id., at 353. Cf. Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333, 334 (1968) (Black, J., concurring) (protecting prisoners from violence might justify narrowly tailored discrimination); J. A. Croson, supra, at 521 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“At least where state or local action is at issue, only a social emergency rising to the level of imminent danger to life and limb . . . can justify [racial discrimination]”). I adhere to that view today. As should be obvious, there is nothing “pressing” or “necessary” about obtaining whatever educational benefits may flow from racial diversity.

E.g., Thomas would hold that government efforts to promote diversity at all, as a public policy goal, are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (It would open the door for -- or really, encourage -- states to criminalize such efforts.) I think Gorsuch would might agree (it would fit with his celebrated decision in Bostock, for example, of preferring the meanings of words over the meanings of the people who wrote them), but I don't know that anyone else would, and Roberts and Kavanaugh would probably be very averse to this.

I suspect Alito has affirmative action with a maximalist ruling that reads like a Chris Rufo speech and prohibits practically any DEI inititiatives in universities accepting federal funds: 1. probably some internal horse trading with Roberts and Kav over Milligan and 2.  I wonder if Jackson being recused here gives him  somewhat more latitude, but the circuit court upheld the status quo, so maybe not? 

Alito would be kind of an odd one since no one really associates him with affirmative action, but you're right that the math is getting to the point where he makes the most sense, and he actually did write the consensus (non-Thomas) conservative dissent in Fisher II. In that decision Alito advocated for very difficult standards for diversity programs in education, but did not advocate banning them, much less implying that diversity is an unconstitutional goal altogether. (19 Republican states, led by Oklahoma, have filed an amicus brief which also holds basically this position). Rufo is associated with CSPI in Texas, who have been very active promoting the latter position; I think we are a ways removed from that.

[politicallefty]

I suspect Alito has affirmative action with a maximalist ruling that reads like a Chris Rufo speech and prohibits practically any DEI inititiatives in universities accepting federal funds: 1. probably some internal horse trading with Roberts and Kav over Milligan and 2.  I wonder if Jackson being recused here gives him  somewhat more latitude, but the circuit court upheld the status quo, so maybe not?

My suspicion has been that Roberts has affirmative action, but I don't know how they're going to issue the decision. I really don't see two different authors for affirmative action despite the splitting of the case.

Also, keep in mind someone is writing twice in March. That complicates the overall tea leaves somewhat.

We can read the tea leaves for April now. Alito and Kagan are the only Justices not to write and we have two cases remaining, one of which is Groff. I think we know which scenario is a lot more likely.

[Ferguson97]

Saw a lot of buzz about the last one on Twitter. Can someone explain this case for dummies?

20 years ago, a man named Marcus Jones was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 922.

He repeatedly challenged his conviction in U.S. district and circuit courts, but the courts kept denying him, including the Eighth Circuit.

Rehaif v. United States, a 2019 Supreme Court case, ruled that in order to convict someone under 18 U.S.C. § 922, the government has to prove that the defendant knew that it was illegal for them to carry a firearm.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land, meaning it overrules any lower court rulings.

As such, Marcus Jones figured "hey, this Rehaif ruling sounds pretty good for me, it pretains to the exact law I was convicted under! I'm gonna try and appeal my sentence again" since per the Court's ruling, the government has to prove that Jones knew it was illegal for him to carry a firearm as a felon. Jones has testified that he didn't know it was illegal (he incorrectly, but genuinely, thought that his record was expunged).

There is another law called Section 2255, which ordinarily prevents federal prisoners from challenging their conviction or sentence more than once.

Clarence Thomas said that Jones cannot appeal because he already tried (and failed) to do so.

The biggest problem with Thomas's ruling is that Jones' appeal happened before the Rehaif decision - meaning that the way that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (the law Jones was convicted under) has to be enforced, has changed.

Clarence Thomas basically said "too bad, so sad - Section 2255 says you can't appeal again". Even though the Supreme Court changed the way that the law he was convicted of breaking has to be enforced.

Section 2255 does have some exceptions, one of which is "unless based on either “newly discovered evidence,” §2255(h)(1), or “a new rule of constitutional law,” §2255(h)(2). 

It would seem plainly obvious that the Rehaif is an example of the latter exception. Clarnce Thomas, however, disagrees, stating that: "This argument fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. When the Suspension Clause was adopted, Jones’ Rehaif claim would not have been cognizable in habeas at all. At the founding, a sentence after conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction was in itself sufficient cause for a prisoner’s continued detention."


tl;dr, Kagan and Sotomayor sum it up well

A prisoner who is actually innocent, imprisoned for conduct that Congress did not criminalize, is forever barred by 28 U. S. C. §2255(h) from raising that claim, merely because he previously sought postconviction relief. It does not matter that an intervening decision of this Court confirms his innocence.  By challenging his conviction once before, he forfeited his freedom

/

[kelestian]

Saw a lot of buzz about the last one on Twitter. Can someone explain this case for dummies?

20 years ago, a man named Marcus Jones was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 922.

He repeatedly challenged his conviction in U.S. district and circuit courts, but the courts kept denying him, including the Eighth Circuit.

Rehaif v. United States, a 2019 Supreme Court case, ruled that in order to convict someone under 18 U.S.C. § 922, the government has to prove that the defendant knew that it was illegal for them to carry a firearm.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land, meaning it overrules any lower court rulings.

As such, Marcus Jones figured "hey, this Rehaif ruling sounds pretty good for me, it pretains to the exact law I was convicted under! I'm gonna try and appeal my sentence again" since per the Court's ruling, the government has to prove that Jones knew it was illegal for him to carry a firearm as a felon. Jones has testified that he didn't know it was illegal (he incorrectly, but genuinely, thought that his record was expunged).

There is another law called Section 2255, which ordinarily prevents federal prisoners from challenging their conviction or sentence more than once.

Clarence Thomas said that Jones cannot appeal because he already tried (and failed) to do so.

The biggest problem with Thomas's ruling is that Jones' appeal happened before the Rehaif decision - meaning that the way that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (the law Jones was convicted under) has to be enforced, has changed.

Clarence Thomas basically said "too bad, so sad - Section 2255 says you can't appeal again". Even though the Supreme Court changed the way that the law he was convicted of breaking has to be enforced.

Section 2255 does have some exceptions, one of which is "unless based on either “newly discovered evidence,” §2255(h)(1), or “a new rule of constitutional law,” §2255(h)(2). 

It would seem plainly obvious that the Rehaif is an example of the latter exception. Clarnce Thomas, however, disagrees, stating that: "This argument fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. When the Suspension Clause was adopted, Jones’ Rehaif claim would not have been cognizable in habeas at all. At the founding, a sentence after conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction was in itself sufficient cause for a prisoner’s continued detention."


tl;dr, Kagan and Sotomayor sum it up well

A prisoner who is actually innocent, imprisoned for conduct that Congress did not criminalize, is forever barred by 28 U. S. C. §2255(h) from raising that claim, merely because he previously sought postconviction relief. It does not matter that an intervening decision of this Court confirms his innocence.  By challenging his conviction once before, he forfeited his freedom

/

Thanks, understand

[politicallefty]

The AEDPA strikes again. It really is a terrible law (and one that seems to fly under the radar apart from those that follow cases like these), but it's so much worse when interpreted through the lens of a conservative supermajority. This line from the majority opinion really sums things up: "Congress has chosen finality over error correction". Actual innocence is not relevant to this Court.

If you needed any evidence that Justice Jackson has really hit the ground running in her first term, her dissent in this case is 39 pages (compared to 25 for the majority).

[politicallefty]

Four more decisions handed down.

Kavanaugh had two decisions in March, so he hit seven today. He's almost certainly done for the term. As I suspected, he had United States v. Texas for the December sitting. That leaves 303 Creative and Moore with only Roberts and Gorsuch having not written. My predictions there have not changed.

With Kavanaugh likely done, that means he likely won't be writing for November. That means affirmative action will be either Roberts or Alito.

With so few decisions from Roberts or Alito, I'm thinking Roberts is most likely writing the student loan case. The next most likely looks like it might be Alito. Anyone else would honestly surprise me at this point.

Next opinion day is Tuesday.

[Skill and Chance]

Four more decisions handed down.

Kavanaugh had two decisions in March, so he hit seven today. He's almost certainly done for the term. As I suspected, he had United States v. Texas for the December sitting. That leaves 303 Creative and Moore with only Roberts and Gorsuch having not written. My predictions there have not changed.

With Kavanaugh likely done, that means he likely won't be writing for November. That means affirmative action will be either Roberts or Alito.

With so few decisions from Roberts or Alito, I'm thinking Roberts is most likely writing the student loan case. The next most likely looks like it might be Alito. Anyone else would honestly surprise me at this point.

Next opinion day is Tuesday.

My understanding is that there were 5 votes for a very narrow understanding of state standing in the Texas immigration case just now (R+K+liberals), in a way that would further move the needle toward the student loan case being dismissed for lack of standing?

[Donerail]

With so few decisions from Roberts or Alito, I'm thinking Roberts is most likely writing the student loan case. The next most likely looks like it might be Alito. Anyone else would honestly surprise me at this point.

? Not sure why you'd be surprised by someone else writing. The March sitting was very light — in addition to those two, Gorsuch, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson have not yet written.

[politicallefty]

My understanding is that there were 5 votes for a very narrow understanding of state standing in the Texas immigration case just now (R+K+liberals), in a way that would further move the needle toward the student loan case being dismissed for lack of standing?

It's definitely a possibility. If it's Alito, we definitely know what's happening. I think Roberts is more likely to strike down than uphold, but I'd guess it's like 70-30 odds. My biggest concern with him is with his line of questioning in oral arguments though.

With so few decisions from Roberts or Alito, I'm thinking Roberts is most likely writing the student loan case. The next most likely looks like it might be Alito. Anyone else would honestly surprise me at this point.

? Not sure why you'd be surprised by someone else writing. The March sitting was very light — in addition to those two, Gorsuch, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson have not yet written.

I was looking at the big picture. Roberts and Alito both only have three opinions each. Barrett and Jackson both already have six opinions. Gorsuch will likely get his sixth opinion with 303 Creative and Kagan will likely get her sixth from the case that isn't Groff from the April sitting. If it's not Robert or Alito, one of them might only end up with five, which doesn't seem likely. For both of them to be skipped over for both January and February seems pretty unlikely.

[politicallefty]

This seems like it might be worth mentioning though:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1672256231606734849

[soundchaser]

This seems like it might be worth mentioning though:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1672256231606734849

Barrett and Kavanaugh *both* seemingly narrowing the reasons states can sue makes me hopeful. I don't know how Alito gets a majority without either of them.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/RickPildes/status/1672256179790127104
Yeah, I really don't think somebody has been spending the last 3 months opining on a DIG.

[Ferguson97]

I think the Court will side with Biden in the student loan case, mostly because I just have a very difficult time imagining a scenario where the court finds that Nebraska has standing but not Texas.

[MillennialModerate]

I think the Court will side with Biden in the student loan case, mostly because I just have a very difficult time imagining a scenario where the court finds that Nebraska has standing but not Texas.

You forget how corrupt the court is - Alito and Thomas prove that. No chance they allow the conservatives to lose a case they deem most important (aside from abortion)

[Donerail]

I think the Court will side with Biden in the student loan case, mostly because I just have a very difficult time imagining a scenario where the court finds that Nebraska has standing but not Texas.

You forget how corrupt the court is - Alito and Thomas prove that. No chance they allow the conservatives to lose a case they deem most important (aside from abortion)

Genuine suggestion: you should stop posting in this board.

[MillennialModerate]

I think the Court will side with Biden in the student loan case, mostly because I just have a very difficult time imagining a scenario where the court finds that Nebraska has standing but not Texas.

You forget how corrupt the court is - Alito and Thomas prove that. No chance they allow the conservatives to lose a case they deem most important (aside from abortion)

Genuine suggestion: you should stop posting in this board.

It’s a legitimate point. We all know they don’t have standing but the conservative judges have been wildely inconsistent on there rulings, previous precedents and prior public statements (both to congress and otherwise) on a whole range of issues.  

[soundchaser]

Kavanaugh is not inconsistent in his judicial philosophy, even if I disagree with it most of the time. From what we've seen of Barrett's writing, neither is she. If they were as brazenly corrupt as you suggest, US v. Texas would not have been decided the way it was.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the Court will side with Biden in the student loan case, mostly because I just have a very difficult time imagining a scenario where the court finds that Nebraska has standing but not Texas.

You forget how corrupt the court is - Alito and Thomas prove that. No chance they allow the conservatives to lose a case they deem most important (aside from abortion)

Genuine suggestion: you should stop posting in this board.

[Vosem]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

[politicallefty]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

[politicallefty]

Gorsuch has a second opinion from November. That upends my calculus.

[soundchaser]

Gorsuch has a second opinion from November. That upends my calculus.

Do you think we're looking at a lost majority for Roberts or Alito?

[politicallefty]

Gorsuch has a second opinion from November. That upends my calculus.

Do you think we're looking at a lost majority for Roberts or Alito?

I'm at a loss. Maybe Gorsuch doesn't have 303 Creative. I wonder if Alito might have it now.

[politicallefty]

We have Moore. It's by the Chief. Appears to be the a full opinion. Dissent by Thomas, joined Gorsuch and Alito.