The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch Switch Sides
A truly interesting and unusual Supreme Court line-up.
Today the Supreme Court decided four cases, one of which featured a particularly unusual -- indeed unprecedented -- line up of justices.
In Mont v. United States, the Court decided, 5-4, that if a criminal defendant's pretrial detention is later credited as time served for a new conviction, that detention counts as "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction" and thus tolls the supervised-release term under federal law, even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.
One reason the Mont decision may be of interest beyond those with an interest in federal criminal sentencing is the 5-4 line up it produced: Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Ginsburg. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
This line up is interested on multiple levels. At first the decision appears to have produced a traditional 5-4, conservative-liberal split, until one notices that Justice Ginsburg joined with the conservatives and Justice Gorsuch joined the liberals. The resulting division is thus neither one we expect to see ideologically, nor is it readily explained on the basis of other common jurisprudential divisions, such as the formalist-pragmatist split we've often seen in other criminal justice contexts. Further, while we've seen Justice Gorsuch cross over to vote with the liberal justices in other cases, we have not seen this in a case in which one of the more liberal justices also "switched sides."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Uh oh, Ginsburg's going squish. I KNEW IT
It’s not always about politics. Sometime, the Supreme Court is just resolving a legal dispute where reasonable minds may differ.
Honestly, there's nothing really surprising about a vote in which RGB votes in favor of giving the government more power over its citizens and Gorsuch votes in favor of giving it less. It's usually how they roll.
So, uh, then what about the other 7 Justices?
Perhaps bevis figures those two are the sole principled people on the Court . . . or perhaps bevis is just sputtering right-wing nonsense.
If you think that Gorsuch and Alito are going to vote in lockstep on criminal justice issues, you have not been paying attention. Most folks who supported Gorsuch are just happy to get a judge on the court who is smart and will follow the law.
Now, if you had Alito and Sotomayor switch sides on a criminal case, *that* would be news.
[…] Mont lineup is interesting “on multiple levels,” suggests law professor Jonathan H. Adler. “At first the decision appears to have produced a traditional 5-4, conservative-liberal […]
[…] Mont lineup is interesting “on multiple levels,” suggests law professor Jonathan H. Adler, […]
[…] Mont lineup is interesting “on multiple levels,” suggests law professor Jonathan H. Adler, […]
[…] Mont lineup is interesting “on multiple levels,” suggests law professor Jonathan H. Adler, […]
[…] can suspend a term of federal supervised release, comes from Fiona Doherty. At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Jonathan Adler remarks on the “particularly unusual—indeed unprecedented—line up of […]