Handing Down The Final 19 (or 17) Opinions

With a Presidential Debate on June 27!

The Supreme Court has nineteen remaining cases to be decided. There will likely be fewer majority opinions as Loper Bright/Relentless and the NetChoice cases will probably be consolidated. To make the math easier, there will probably be seventeen actual opinions handed down.

The Court has scheduled an opinion day for tomorrow, Friday, June 21. Next week there will probably be days added for Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. One wrinkle is that there will be a presidential debate the evening of Thursday, June 27.

The last time the Supreme Court intersected with a presidential debate was on February 13, 2016. That afternoon, Justice Scalia's death was announced, and that evening, Donald Trump told us he would fill the seat with Judges Pryor or Sykes. (For those keeping track at home, neither judge was placed on the Supreme Court.)

Does the Court really want the debate to turn into a free-for-all on presidential immunity. Methinks not. In the past, I've speculated that the Court (really the Chief) tries to stagger out opinions to minimize the press scrutiny--combining some conservative and some liberal opinions on a given day. If so, then the biggest cases all may come down on Friday, June 28--after the debate. And, if my math is right, Chief Justice Roberts may write each of them Rahimi, Loper-Bright/Relentless, and Trump. And they would be announced back-to-back. I think it is very unlikely that Roberts would allow any of those cases to mar the debate.

Here we go. Seventeen opinions spread over four hand-down days. The next week will be busy.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just calling balls and strikes . . . and timing the calls along a partisan line?

[SMP0328]

Is it partisan to release the immunity decision before the debate or after the debate? I guess the Court will be accused of partisanship either way.

[Currentsitguy]

If they announce before their partisan, if they wait until after they obviously waited to make one of them look like a fool. You know how it goes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It was Blackman (and not for the first time) who speculated about political considerations influencing the current Court's timing.

And, believe it or not, he was not alone.

[ah....Clem]

It was partisan to grant cert in the first place. Instead, they did Trump's Attorneys' bidding and delayed the case for as long as possible.

Do they even have to issue a ruling this term? Or ever? Since they make their own rules the answer seems to be no.

[Roger S]

Yes, big cases, but we are unlikely to see any of the grand sweeping rulings that were common from the Warren court.

[Magister]

We're not really in a time of major societal change that the Warren court had to deal with. And Roberts appears not to want grand sweeping rulings; they would mostly be 5-4 if Roberts refuses to join the other conservatives, or 6-3 if he joins after failing to get them to reduce the scope (thinking of Dobbs there, so sweeping rulings are possible).

[Michael P]

The left is pushing sterilizing drugs for kids, surgical mutilations, and men in women's restrooms, and this guy claims we're "not really in a time of major societal change".

Then he goes on to pretend, contrary to evidence, that the Supreme Court consists of two coherent blocs of justices plus John Roberts who merely decides whether the decisions will be 5-4 or 6-3.

Sad.

[PLP 2]

No they are not.

[hobie]

This guy here

[Magister]

Transgender issues are the sum and total of your major societal change? It doesn't compare to civil rights and second-wave feminism of the 1960s.

[Nige]

And those issues have been around for decades. If anything, the societal change is a reactionary movement to restore a status quo where they were not protected by civil rights and socially marginalised.

[TextFirst]

That's kind of circular. The reason we're not in a time of major change is because the Roberts court is modest whereas the Warren court was imperious. If the Roberts court was the inversion of the Warren court, it would have just made abortion outright illegal using "legal creativity" rather than leave it to the voters.

[Magister]

A lot of societal change in the era of the Warren Court was not driven by the Warren Court.

[F.D. Wolf]

Another reason to save the immunity decision for last, especially if, as seems probable, the Court will decide there is some limited immunity, is to get out of town before the angry Leftist mob descends on the Court.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right, peoples lives are in danger if the Dem's don't get their way. Peoples lives are in danger when they do, too. So, not sure if that matters.

[Doug Heffernan]

Unlike the maga right which is unangry and never mobs anything?

[Currentsitguy]

Private property of innocent people gets torched, and I'm angry. Government buildings? Meh. An angry public mob is a sign of healthy society. Wish it happened more often, preferably with tar and feathers.

[Doug Heffernan]

The right's contempt for government (and the state in general) has that same sort of meh attitude when they get into power, so as to prove that it's as bad as they claim, in order to transfer any public power/wealth into the hands of their rich friends.

It's still human beings that do the work, whether for government or any other job. Anyone who is predisposed to thinking that the entity that they work for is crap, or shouldn't even exist, is not likely to care about doing a good job. Unless doing a good job is just to run it into the ground. Meh gets what meh gives.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah it's so true. Everything you said!

When Democrats are in charge, they are altruistic government spendikg is efficient and government projects are on time and on budget, and wealth inequality decreases! It's Utopia!

When Republicans are in charge it's the exact opposite! This country careens from great government to crappy government everytime there are power changes!

When

[CindyF]

When the left gets upset they torch cities, burn police cars, loot businesses, burn police buildings and businesses, and murder people. Sometimes for several nights in a row. The media calls that "mostly peaceful protests".

The right has one protest get out of hand (with provocation and FBI antagonists in the crowd), a few people break some windows (mostly done by anti-protesters), and one of their unarmed protesters is shot by authorities. They are called violent insurrectionists. There is no outrage by the media and none of the usual anti-police brutality columnists and activists say a word in criticism over the shooting of the protester.

There is no funeral attended by Congressmen, city dignitaries, and anti-police activists. The killer not only walks free but is commended and celebrated for the shooting. There are actually some unarmed protester killings that Reason writers support.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And half the commenters. Democrats are sick sick sick monsters.

[PLP 2]

No they are not.

[PLP 2]

Most of that is a sanctimonious bold faced lie.

[Nige]

The left got upset over cops shooting people for no reason with little to no consequences. The right got upset because they lost an election. And they celebrate a guy who shot people with little to no consequences.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they had a sense of fun they'd open the courthouse every morning at 10 a.m., then after ten minutes solemnly walk to take the bench, then look at each other, shake their heads, then head back into chambers and go home. It would drive Josh stark raving nuts.

[Bubba Jones]

How is this supposed to make me feel about Roberts?

[David Nieporent]

Not sure how the reasoning is going to work, but I'm pretty sure he needs to resign.

[ah....Clem]

Roberts is not going to resign, at least absent some life-changing event. He's also highly unlikely to address the mess he's created as Chief Justice by ignoring or facilitating the ethical lapses of his colleagues.

Yes, any reasonable person would resign. Or make some effort to correct the dire situation. Don't hold your breath.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Better Americans will correct this situation.

[Frank Drackman]

Your Bettors? Like Sammy “ the Knife” Alito and Clarence “Frogman” Thomas

Frank “what’s an “Oyez”?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe that’s what we call “horseshoe theory”.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. I hope it was clear to everyone other than clem that my comment was mocking Blackman.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A Wednesday announcement day was added for next week.

[TextFirst]

For most people (not law professors or nerds) I'd say the blockbuster one is Grant's Pass. I don't think the Ninth Circuit line of cases holding that self-described homeless people are immune to laws of general applicability are right, but:

If they are right, then the suffering should be spread out equally throughout the country, there's no reason a few states should become bum magnets because they're burdened with precedent nobody else is. If they're wrong, then let states and cities get back to determining for themselves how to regulate this issue. The status quo ante was completely unacceptable.

[Moderation4ever]

The only way the immunity decision affects the debate is if Trump loses it. He will have a fit.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, at this point, regardless of how the immunity decision goes, it's essentially too late to try him before the election. Definitely in Florida, where Cannon will simply drag this out until Trump dies of old age. But almost certainly not in DC either. (And Fulton County is its own mess, though of course the immunity case doesn't directly affect that one.) Will Trump flip out if he loses? Of course. But he'll flip out in some way either way.

[Riva]

You democrat thugs are really salivating for another banana republic farce of a trial aren’t you? As for Florida, what makes you so certain the hack Smith will survive the motion to dismiss based on his unconstitutional appointment? Pretty solid arguments there for Judge Cannon to send Smith packing and salvage some of whatever remains to the rule of law in this Republic.

[Dilan Esper]

The last time the Supreme Court intersected with a presidential debate was on February 13, 2016. That afternoon, Justice Scalia's death was announced, and that evening, Donald Trump told us he would fill the seat with Judges Pryor or Sykes. (For those keeping track at home, neither judge was placed on the Supreme Court.)

I will say, I laughed at this.

[CindyF]

For those keeping score, if my math is correct, thus far Roberts has written 2 opinions; Thomas 7, Alito, 4, Kagan 5, Gorsuch 2, Kavanaugh 5, Sotomayor, 7, Barrett 3, and Jackson 4. (three cases were per curiam)

[SRG2]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23

Five more today, including Rahimi, decided 8-1, Thomas dissenting.

Majority
5: Roberts
4: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan
3: Alito, Thomas, Jackson

Erlinger had an odd combo in dissent - Alito, Kavanaugh and Jackson.