The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kavanaugh Still Wants SCOTUS To Hear More Cases
The Supreme Court's docket may be awfully small, but it's not Justice Kavanaugh's fault.
In several recent posts I have noted that Justice Kavanaugh appears to want the Supreme Court to hear a significant number of cases that his colleagues do not. We know this because the Supreme Court's order lists often note that he would have granted certiorari in a case that was denied.
Today we see another example of this. Among the cases in which the Court denied certiorari on today's order list is South Carolina State Ports Authority v. National Labor Relations Board. In addition to noting that certiorari was denied, the order list also notes that Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.
This case presented the following interesting questions:
1. Whether a union's unlawful secondary boycott is shielded by the work-preservation defense because the targeted secondary employer could choose to take its business elsewhere and, in that way, can "control" the primary employer's work assignments.
2. Whether a union's unlawful secondary boycott is shielded by the work-preservation defense even when no bargaining unit jobs are threatened.
While I find these questions interesting, it does not appear that four justices found them to be worthy of certiorari.
While he appears to want the Court to hear more cases, Justice Kavanaugh did not join Justice Alito's dissent from denial of certiorari in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, a case concerning the extent to which school districts may consider race (or proxies for race) in school assignment decisions. (My co-blogger Ilya Somin blogged about the lower court's decision here.)
What this may suggest is that while Justice Kavanaugh wants to hear more cases that raise questions of significance to the business community or regulatory matters, including cases involving patents, tort litigation and labor law, he is not as keen to hear cases implicating culture war flashpoints, such as race.
An important qualification to note here is that justices are not required to disclose when they would have granted certiorari in a given case. So while we know at least some cases in which Justice Kavanaugh would have granted certiorari, we do not know how his colleagues voted in these cases, or whether there are other cases in which Justice Kavanaugh would have supported certiorari, but chose not to disclose that fact.
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
The titled conclusion
is inconsistent with the body
and does not follow.
Wanting to hear more of some kinds of cases, and fewer of other kinds of cases, requires actual numbers to know whether he wants to hear more or fewer cases overall.
The post does not say, suggest, or provide evidence that Justice Kavanaugh wants the court to hear fewer of any kind of case.
.... what did you take "he is not as keen to hear cases implicating culture war flashpoints, such as race" to mean?
It means that he does not feel appear to feel that the court should hear more of those cases than they currently do (or at least, not strongly enough to have that preference noted, as he does for the other category). It does not suggest that he thinks the court is hearing too many of those cases as is, or that it should hear fewer of them than it does.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-170_7l48.pdf
The Supreme Court debases itself by refusing to hear this case. It makes a cruel joke of equal justice under law.
Regarding the denied cert for Thomas Jefferson High School, the lower courts are doing the same thing as they are for 2nd Amendment cases. Pushing the limits of what they can get away with.
The school board's decision to give preferences to blacks to keep Asians out was in bad faith.
It's disgusting. And many justices on the court, I think, don't want the adverse publicity.
Right. They make a big splash with their "historic" rulings, but then they let the governments run roughshod over it by making minor changes and starting the process over, clearly violating the spirits of the rulings.
-The Court not taking up an issue you care about passionately does not debase them.
-The Court's caseload continues to go down, and there is speculation but no satisfying conclusion as to the cause.
-Opinions are not necessarily in bad faith because they differ from your take on the Constitution, no matter how passionately you believe you are correct.
-Policies you don't like may be in bad faith, but you need more than just saying 'it's a really bad policy!'
If only you believed your own words ...
Do you have any actual examples you'd like to point to here?
Do you have any actual examples of your opponents doing the same?
To be more precise, why do you expect me to do what you did not and will not do?
ETA Why are your assertions sacrosanct and everybody else has to provide citations which you will scoff at?
Yes; all my comments but one were responding to specific comments in this thread.
1 - rloquitur
2 - general commentary
3 - Jumaira
4 - Jumaira again.
Such very convincing citations! I am sure you would accept similarly bare bones citations by the people you detest.
"rloquitur 3 hours ago
...
The Supreme Court debases itself by refusing to hear this case. It makes a cruel joke of equal justice under law."
=============
"Jumaira 2 hours ago
Regarding the denied cert for Thomas Jefferson High School, the lower courts are doing the same thing as they are for 2nd Amendment cases. Pushing the limits of what they can get away with.
The school board’s decision to give preferences to blacks to keep Asians out was in bad faith."
The Constitution says "equal protection of the law." It does not have a carveout to further diversity. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed." It doesn't have a carveout for "perceived public safety."
The Constitution says "no law...abridging the freedom of speech." it does not have a carveout for "hate speech."
You can't read your own policy preferences into the Constitution in good faith. It's really that simple.
YOU are reading YOUR policy preferences into the Constitution. It's really that simple.
It's the height of pride to assume you have the inside track on what the Constitution means, and that it happens to agree with your priors.
All your takes are reasonable ones, but *reasonable people can differ*. That is a principle our republic is founded on!
E.g. I and the Court agree with you on hate speech, but your logic proves too much. The 1A is full of unwritten exceptions, (and was understood to be so at the Founding if you want to roll originalist)
Beyond your personal take maybe being wrong, you ignore precedent. Constitutional law is built upon precedent by people more learned than you or I, and who were chosen by our system to have authority in the area. Originalist scholarship finds that the Founders knew and expected this to be the way the Constitution was interpreted.
It's frankly childish to respond to our judiciary disagreeing with your personal take by declaring they are all lying and truly agree with you.
You are a disingenuous buffoon. First of all, we are talking about children facing discrimination based on their race. Let that sink in. When courts close their doors to child victims of invidious discrimination (and a desire to have a school that doesn't have so many Asians IS invidious), the courts debase themselves. And these kids are just supposed to take this nonsense?
Obviously, the Supreme Court cannot take every case, but the flouting of precedent by the Fourth Circuit is just so obvious and wrong. Why in the world should the opportunities of children be limited merely because a disproportionate amount of others who share the same lumped-together heritage happen to excel. There's just no basis in law for this.
People like you are a cancer on our society. You deserve every ill that befalls you.
People and courts can be profoundly wrong in this world. Deal with it without accusing them of professional misconduct.
There’s just no basis in law for this.
There's actually some famous Supreme Court cases allowing AA. They'll probably be reversed in time; but not yet.
Their job is to get it f'in right.
People like you are a cancer on our society. You deserve every ill that befalls you.
Grow up.
When people are cavalier about others' rights, then perhaps they should see what it's like to have theirs violated.
Why in the world should the opportunities of children be limited merely because a disproportionate amount of others who share the same lumped-together heritage happen to excel. There’s just no basis in law for this.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016), when the SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of (among other things) Texas's 10% plan, which was proudly instituted as a way of improving the racial diversity at Texas state universities but that time-honored champion of wokeness, George W. Bush himself.
What precedent do you feel Jumaira is ignoring here?
The case that says you need to show intent to discriminate. It's from the 1970s.
I think this is it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Development_Corp.
To be fair...
Both "discriminatory intent, non-discriminatory result" and "non-discriminatory intent, discriminatory result" has been A-OKed by the SCOTUS.
Hell, even "discriminatory intent, discriminatory result" has gotten SCOTUS approval when it suits them, though they do admittedly play more coy there, and look for outs.
It's one of the reasons why discrimination cases are really hard to win.
I'm not following. Jumaira is very clearly of the position that the district acted with discrimnatory intent. ("The school board’s decision to give preferences to blacks to keep Asians out was in bad faith.")
Jumaira thinks *everyone* acted with discriminatory intent, though he has no actual evidence - the district, the lower courts, the 4th Circuit.
They're all in on it is not a well thought out theory of the case here.
Mr. Justice Kavanaugh and Sir Richard Starr can commiserate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PMGbrTruXsE
The natural explanation is that Justice Kavanaugh wants the current Supreme Court to get while the getting's good (or, more accurate, still available).
If we actually want the SCOTUS to take more cases, then it should probably be reorganized to be more like an appellate court, with a large number of judges, most cases being only heard by a small number of the judges, and an option for the whole court to weigh in on an issue after the smaller court first hears it.
And while we're at it, we should probably go ahead and codify that presidents get to appoint X number of members of the court each term rather then having appointments tied to death or retirement, and do something about the Senate's role in the appointment process. (seriously, the games Republicans played in 2016 and 2020 are ridiculous. Whatever the "rules" are, they need to be better written down).
Obviously, these kinds of reforms would dilute the power of individual justices, while also taking luck out of some considerations. But honestly, I think we could do with fewer celebrity jurists.
It does seem beyond bonkers that a country of 350m has only 9 supreme court justices. Same with the House.
Sotomayor also indicated in her dissental today that Kavanaugh agrees with her that the Court should hear whether 2nd habeas petitions by federal prisoners can be heard in District Court.