The Printing Speed of SCOTUS

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson incorporated a Texas state court decision from Thursday afternoon.

On Thursday around 5:00 ET, a state judge rule that S.B. was unconstitutional, in part. Friday, at 10 ET, Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion referenced that decision.

A summary judgment ruling in these now-consolidated cases arrived last night, in which the abortion providers pre- vailed on certain of their claims. Van Stean v. Texas, No. D–1–GN–21–004179 (Dist. Ct. Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 9, 2021).

As did Justice Thomas's concurrence:

The Texas courts held summary- judgment hearings on November 10 and entered partial judgment for the abortion providers on December 9. See Van Stean v. Texas, No. D–1–GN–21–004179 (Dist. Ct. Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 9, 2021).

I did not see a reference in the other opinions, but my review so far has been quick

The Supreme Court moves fast. I do not know what the cutoff is to modify printed opinions, but it is apparently less than 12 hours. Indeed, last night I wondered if the Texas court's decision could possibly delay the issuance of opinions today. Nope. The Court was ready.

I will have much more to say about this case.

Update: Chief Justice Roberts referenced the state court case in footnote of his opinion. I missed it on quick review because he didn't include the citation.

A recent summary judgment ruling in state court found S. B. 8 un-constitutional in certain respects, not including the ban on abortions af-ter roughly six weeks. See ante, at 2, 15. That order—which does not grant injunctive relief and has not yet been considered on appeal—does not legitimate the State's effort to legislate away a federally protected right.  

Comments

[dwb68]

meh. pdf. They are issuing opinions electronically still.

[dwb68]

As pointed out on scotusblog: "This is a reminder that the court is continuing to issue opinions in argued cases by dropping them on the website, and without opinion summaries (or any oral dissents) in the courtroom, even though they are back in the courtroom for oral arguments."

pdf-ing, the non-boomer version of "printing", takes 5 min.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I will have much more to say about this case.

There's no need for threats.

[Bored Lawyer]

Since we are on this topic, sort of, why can't the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals dispense with printing of briefs and the record? Other than keeping printers in business, does it really accomplish anything?

In my experience, many trial courts, both federal and state, just rely on filed electronic documents. They are beginning to require hyperlinks and/or Bookmarks, but that is not all that hard to do. Saves papers and expense.

Thoughts?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Seems very obviously correct.

[dwb68]

because boomers still practice law.

[WPHDM]

I agree. That said, I kind'a appreciated the little booklet brief the DOJ was good enough to send my way at government's expense. The feel of it in your hand ... like a law review reprint bragging-rights exemplar for the author, even if no one is ever gonna read or cite it. Here, a hard copy booklet as a souvenir of sorts from the in-absentia disposition of a historic case with a special angle.

At least Ms. Clarkston can now breath a sigh of relief next time she has an incoming SB8 related filing. In PDF, of course. She probably won't risk being held in contempt or face Section 1983 liability any more.

For the extrajudicial record, the "un-friended" nonbooklet filing is here: Amicus Curiae Brief of Political Scientist Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino in Support of State Court Adjudication in U.S. vs. Texas, No. 21-588 (October 27, 2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3953453

[m4019597]

Electronic records can be altered without any evidence of the alteration*, often at a comfortable distance from the scene.

Having a printed record stores under the eye of an archivist ensures it will be there for reference, even decades later.

A hybrid system is more practical than just printed references, while providing convenience. It would be foolish to dispense with printed records.

* much hype has been made of blockchain ledgers, electronic chain of custody, and the like, but they rely on the expertise of computer scientists and mathematicians, because those systems are too complex.

Good luck proving that an electronic document you relied on was falsified.