Friday Morning SCOTUS Fun (Updated)

Another day in which the conservative justices split on constitutional and statutory questions, and the Court split along gender lines in a case concerning renewable fuels.

This morning the Supreme Court issued three of its remaining eight cases argued during the October 2020 term. All three of these cases produced split decisions—two 6-3 and one 5-4—none along traditional ideological lines.

First up was TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, in which the Court ruled 5-4 that a majority of plaintiff class members lacked Article III standing to sue TransUnion for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by the Court's liberals. Justice Kagan also dissented, joined by just Breyer and Sotomayor.

Next was the case everyone has been waiting for: HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, which concerns fuel refiners' eligibility for hardship extensions under the federal renewable fuels program. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a six-justice majority, held that a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption could obtain an "extension" from the Environmental Protection Agency under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) even if it saw a lapse in exemption coverage in a previous year. Justice Barrett wrote the dissent, arguing that the statute's text and structure dictated otherwise. Of potential interest: All of the male justices joined Justice Gorsuch's opinion for the Court. The Court's female justices joined Justice Barrett's dissent. (Update: For a history of such splits on the Court, see this post by Josh Blackman.)

The third and final decision of the day was in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, and it was another case that produced an unusual line-up. Justice  Sotomayor wrote for the Court, concluding that Alaska Native Corporations are Indian Tribes for purposes of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and are therefore eligible for COVI-19 relief funding under Title V of the CARES Act. She was joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh and Barrett in full, and Justice Alito in part. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Kagan.

There are five argued cases that have yet to be decided. They are likely to be issued next week.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

Next was the case everyone has been waiting for: HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, which concerns fuel refiners’ eligibility for hardship extensions under the federal renewable fuels program.

Who is “everyone?” That sounds like a case that only those in that industry and their lawyers care about.

[Martinned]

I think that was irony…

[MatthewSlyfield]

Or sarcasm

[Martinned]

Fair enough.

When I was Googling the difference, I found this nugget, which seems apposite:

A clever person coined the variant spelling sarchasm (a blend of sarcasm and chasm) and defined it as “the gap between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.”

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sarcasm

[Sarcastr0]

That’s the joke.

[Robert Efroymson]

The joke is that there is no joke.

[Greg J]

I’m pretty sure everyone who drives a car / pays for gas is affected by this one

[Martinned]

I guess now big business knows why they put up with Trump for four years…

[Krychek_2]

Initially, Kavanaugh had me convinced, until I read Thomas’s dissent and saw just how badly Trans Union had behaved.

[Greg J]

I like seeing Trans Union hurt.

But if no one received your credit report with the incorrect data, you weren’t harmed. No harm, no suit

[Sarcastr0]

Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Kagan.

Welp, gonna have to read that one.

[Queen Amalthea]

It’s worth it if only to read Gorsuch’s footnote on the preparation of cerviche.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Until one considers that Justice Gorsuch’s assumption — that ceviche is not cooked — is fishy.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

There are a number of opinions now where the court debates between a more pragmatic textualism vs a more literal one, and the alignment makes sense in that context. Kagan, Thomas, and Gorsuch are more literalists, and the rest are more pragmatic, to varying degrees.

[Greg J]

Would the decision have been easier if “recognized by the Federal Gov’t” was put in front of ANCs, rather than behind?

Yes

But the inclusion of ANCs has to have some meaning. And since none of them have treaties with the Federal Gov’t, “all the included words mean something” argues against Gorsuch’s dissent, and for Sotomayor’s opinion.

Now there’s some words I never thought I’d write!

[Queen Amalthea]

“All of the male justices joined Justice Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court. The Court’s female justices joined Justice Barrett’s dissent.”

Take that CRT!

[Greg J]

CRT is critical RACE theory, not critical SEX theory

[Greg J]

Just checking here:
Are you claiming that blacks and whites are as different as women and men?

[jb]

Seems like a weird question in the context of CRT, since one of the principles of CRT is that race is a social construct.

[John F. Carr]

I figured Gorsuch for the majority in the Alaska case. But as he pointed out whichever way the court rules, Indian, I mean Eskimo, I mean Indigenous People win.

[mtkesq]

Josh Blackman correctly predicted ZERO of today’s opinion writers, although some of his predictions wrote dissents.

[John F. Carr]

Dog bites man.

[Greg J]

No, ALL of his predictions wrote the primary dissents

As I’m generally in political agreement with Blackman, but generally happy with all the decisions today, i find this ironically amusing

[ReaderY]

Transunion has potentially huge implications.

If the judiciary has sole power to determine what constitutes an injury, and the people, through their elected representatives, get no say at all in such an important mattee as what injures them, they may as well not bother to call ourselves a democracy. Under the majority opinion, Congress and legislatures generally, elected representatives of the people, are not even entitled ro any defference, no say at all, in what constitutes an injury. If judges disagree with the people when they claim something injures them, judges can just flat-out ignore them.

This converts standing from an instrument of judicial modesty to an instrument of judicial power. In order for judges to be willing even to hear anout your industry, they first have to like you. Or at least, your injury has to be the kind of injury they like.

In this case, it was perfectly reasonable for Congress to conclude that both sending a credit report without any notation that you were a terrorest suspect when you paid extra specifically to see that information on that report, and to send you a separate letter informing you of your terrorism suspect designation without informing you of your rights, were injuries supporting standing.

The Supreme Court should have defered to Congress’ reasonable conclusion rather than conpletely ignoring Congress and deciding the matter for itself.

[John F. Carr]

After reading TransUnion I was thinking of another battle between the legislature and judiciary, in Ohio in the 1990s. But in that case the judiciary won and invalidated a tort reform law.