Has Justice Barrett Replaced Justice Ginsburg as the Court's Quickest Opinion Writer?

Justice Barrett has produced two majority opinions before most of her colleagues have produced one.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was "notorious" for many things, including being one of the fastest opinion writers on the Court. Justice Ginsburg was often the first justice to issue an opinion in an argued case, and almost always got at least one opinion out during the Fall of any given term (a feat that only one justice on the Court was able to accomplish this term).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who replaced Justice Ginsburg on the Court, may also be filling Justice Ginsburg's role as the most proficient opinion writer. Justice Barrett was the author of the Court's first majority opinion of the term, a brief, unanimous opinion in Arellano v. McDonough.  This opinion was the one-and-only opinion for the Court in an argued case issued last fall. (The Court also issued a one-line per curiam in In re Grand Jury, dismissing that case as improvidently granted.)

Today Justice Barrett issued her second opinion for the Court in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, another unanimous opinion for the Court. Justice Sotomayor wrote a brief concurrence, joined by Justice Jackson.

But that is not all. Justice Barrett also authored the dissent in Cruz v. Arizona, which was also released today, and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Accordingly Justice Barrett has issued three opinions in argued cases before four of her colleagues have managed to issue a single one. (The only other justices to issue majority opinions in cases so far this term are Justices Sotomayor, who had the majority in Cruz, and Justice Kagan, who wrote for the Court in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, over dissents by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kaganaugh, joined by Justice Alito.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Its that whole Catholic Schoolgirl thing

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Credit should go where credit is due: It's a handmaiden thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

She's using ChatGPT?

[santamonica811]

Okay, if I'm honest, that got a "heh" out of me.

[ReaderY]

I think Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent in Hewitt had the better argument. An employee who does not manage other employees can be considered a salaried employee if the employee is guaranteed a minimum salary of $455 for each week for which the employee works any portion of the week.

Mr. Hewitt’s $963 daily rate meant that if he worked for one day in any week, or any portion of the day. he got $963 for the day. This means he always got at least $963 for the week when he worked any amount of time in the week. $963 is more than $455. So Mr. Hewitt’s pay arrangement satisfied the minimum weekly salary requirement.

I agree with Justice Kavanaugh that the definition is a functional definition, and no special magic words are needed in the contract to make it effective. I agree the majority was wrong to think that the minimum has to be specifically designated by terms such as “guaranteed salary.” If the net effect of the payment arrangement is that working any amount of time in a week results in the employee receiving at least $455 for the week, then the employee meets the functional definition of a salaried employee, regardless of the words used in the contract. So a daily rate of at least $455, where the daily rate is received if the employee works any portion of a day, necessarily meets the definition of a weekly salary of at least $455, and the employee should be classified for FLSA purposes accordingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What happens in a state with a higher minimum wage?
Massachusetts is now $15/hour.

[ReaderY]

With an hourly wage of $15, the minimum you’d be guaranteed to be paid for working any part of a week would be one hour’s pay, $15. That’s a lot less than the $455 required weekly minimum. So no, it doesn’t qualify as a salaried employee. An hourly worker would have to be paid at least $455 per hour to qualify under Justice Kavanaugh’s approach.

[Krayt]

Salary is how much you are paid for a week or month, regardless of hours worked.

A monthy salary is typically your yearly salary divided by 12, and you get as much for February as you do for December.

Wage earners on hourly are guaranted nothing independent of hours worked.

I worked for a biweekly salary once (yearly divided by 26) but that’s rough hand to mouth as some months you get 2 checks, others 3, depending on when the next 2 week tic happens, whereas expenses accrue monthly.

[ReaderY]

This case was about the definition of salary in the FSLA and its implementing regulations, not salary as you or your employer or some dictionary defines it. Salary under the FSLA, as the Supreme Court found it, is the amount you are guaranteed to be paid for each week in which you do any amount of work. If you don’t work at all in a week, you don’t have to be paid for the week, and as long as you meet certain other requirements, jncluding a minimum amount, it’s still salary. The disagreement between the majority and the dissent was whether the guarantee had to be explicitly stated or whether it could be implied by the pay formula.

[David Nieporent]

I think Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent in Hewitt had the better argument. An employee who does not manage other employees can be considered a salaried employee if the employee is guaranteed a minimum salary of $455 for each week for which the employee works any portion of the week.

Salary. Not wages.

So Mr. Hewitt’s pay arrangement satisfied the minimum weekly salary requirement.

Correct. It satisfies the salary amount requirement. But it does not satisfy the salary basis requirement. There's no question that his pay was not computed on a weekly, or less frequent, basis; it was a day rate.

It does not need to meet some "functional" definition; it needs to comply with the regulations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I right that Jackson was trying to protect wives from husband's debts?

[Noscitur a sociis]

As is always the case when you start a question with those three words, the answer is no.

[Roger Wilco]

Catholic women do tend to be prolific.