The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Barrett Authors First Supreme Court Decision of the Term
The Supreme Court has been slow to issue opinions this term, but the first opinion has finally been released.
Today the Supreme Court issued its first opinion for the October 2022 term, a short unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Arellano v. McDonough. The Court ususally issues a few opinions in the Fall, but not this year. For the first time in modern memory, the Court failed to issue any opinions until January. It has been a term of longer arguments and fewer opinions.
Arellano concerned veterans' disability benefits, and Justice Barret authored a clear and brief opinion. Here is her summary:
This case concerns the effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran of the United States military. The governing statute provides that the effective date of the award "shall not be earlier" than the day on which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) receives the veteran's application for benefits. But the statute specifies 16 exceptions, one of which is relevant here: If the VA receives the application within a year of the veteran's discharge, the effective date is the day after the veteran's discharge. We must decide whether this exception is subject to equitable tolling, a doctrine that would allow some applications filed outside the 1-year period to qualify for the "day after discharge" effective date. We hold that the provision cannot be equitably tolled.
That Justice Barrett authored the first opinion of the term is no surprise. More junior justices tend to get the less desirable opinion assignments, so they tend to draw less controversial (and often quite technical) cases. These decisions tend to be unanimous, and unanimous opinions are often produced more quickly because there is less back-and-forth between dueling opinions.
The most junior justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is likely getting similar opinion assignments, but she is also brand new to the Court. It is likely she is still gaining her sea legs, so it would have been surprising had she been first out of the gate. She was also not a particularly quick opinion writer on the D.C. Circuit, authoring her first opinion eight months after joining that court.
This morning the Court also DIGged a case (as in, Dismissed as Improvidently Granted): In re Grand Jury, which concerned the extent to which attorney client privilege applies to communications containing both legal and non-legal advice.
The Court also denied certiorari in a number of cases, one of which -- Toth v. United States, which concerns the Excessive Fines Clause -- produced a Justice Gorsuch dissent.
No word yet on when the Court may issue more opinions.
[Note: Post revised as I initially referred to Justice Jackson as next-most junior justice, when she is the most junior justice.]
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
Professor Adler,
The post contains a mistake. Justice Brown is the most junior Justice, while Justice Barrett is the “next-most-junior Justice.” Note: “next” implies further behind than, but this is relative rather than absolute, and hence is reversed whenever we count backwards. The next-to-last finisher comes before the last finisher, not after. Similarly, the next-most-junior Justice is more senior than the most-Junior Justice.
I’m surprised this was even considered worth granting cert. Every lower court came to the right conclusion, there was just some disagreement as to why this guy loses. This case isn’t that important, it’s only of interest to this one guy. And there isn’t a circuit split (and I believe there can’t be– all decisions construing this statute should be routed through the Federal Circuit). This doesn’t seem to come up often enough that it was even that critical to give lower courts guidance. So what gives?
They're at each other's throats, I suppose they saw a dead obvious case as a good chance to at least get SOMETHING done.
This might actually be it. Figure they want an easy case they can all agree on and give a more junior justice a relatively easy opinion. If they're doing that, then it makes sense to pick someone being represented pro bono against the government, as this guy was, so you're not sticking some private party with a huge legal bill to provide the Court with a softball. Guess we'll never know for sure, but barring a better explanation...
RE: “It is likely she is still gaining her sea legs, so it would have been surprising had she been first out of the gate.”
If you were to write this sentence in a ninth-grade essay, you’d get docked ten points for each of the two overused clichés, and twenty more for the mixed metaphor, leaving you with a maximum possible score of 60/100. Is your proofreader on vacation???
Oh well. You’ve already posted the article, and some people have already read it. You can't un-ring the bell by trying to put the genie back into the bottle. Spilled milk blows no one any good, and it is useless to dwell on (as the fellow said).
I am quite surprised this is something cert worthy, the case seems utterly obvious. The statue says 1 year. Equitable tolling exists but it doesn't mean we make 1 year 30 years. And when Congress already made an exception ... like cmon.
Kind of disappointed in the DIG. Thought that was an issue worth addressing, although I guess the Court decided that this wasn't a good vehicle for it.
Same here. I listened to the oral argument. What a juicy issue!
KBJ is a vote only.
"...This morning the Court also DIGged a case (as in, Dismissed as Improvidently Granted): In re Grand Jury, which concerned the extent to which attorney client privilege applies to communications containing both legal and non-legal advice...."
Jon (or others with knowledge),
When a case is DIGged, does that require only 4 votes (ie, the same number as was needed for SCOTUS to take up the case)? Or, does it take 5 votes (ie, the same number as for a controlling issued opinion)?
It takes five votes for a DIG.
thanks 🙂
What is amusing is that while the decision is really a no brainer from the legal standpoint social media is blowing up with headlines like 'the GOP is fucking vets in the ass with no lube (not literally)' and making it seem like the SCJs Trump appointed are taking food out of the mouths of hungry vets; instead of blaming Congress for passing fairly clear laws that the SC rules on.