Predictions For The Final 6 Cases

Chevron, Netchoice, Trump, Grant's Pass, Fischer, and Corner Post.

There are six cases remaining. The Court will be in session tomorrow. Friday, June 28. The Chief Justice did not announce that Friday will be the final day, so we will come back next week. The Court has announced that Monday, July 1 will be an opinion day. Here are my predictions for the final six cases.

From the January sitting, only Loper-Bright/Relentless remains. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh have not written from that sitting. Kavanaugh already has six opinions, so I think he is done for the term. Chevron is for the Chief.

From the February sitting, Corner Post and the NetChoice cases remain. Alito and Barrett have not written from that sitting. I predict Barrett will write a tight opinion in Corner Post, a nerdy procedure case. And Justice Alito will write for a very fractured Court in the social media cases.

From the April sitting, with the Moyle DIG, there were nine cases argued, six of which have already been decided. I predict that Chief Justice Roberts has the Trump immunity case. There is no way he gives that case up. I predict Justice Gorsuch has Fischer. He loves to hate on federal criminal law. And Justice Jackson has Grant's Pass. I think this case can be one of the surprise decisions of the term. Walking in, I thought there was no way the homeless people would prevail, but the oral argument suggests this opinion may be hard to write.

And, if I had to guess, Roberts will hold Chevron and Trump for Monday. Dump it during the Fourth of July weekend.

These predictions are worth what you paid.

Comments

[Orbital Mechanic]

The ruling on Trump is obvious. It will be although we can't get his case thrown out we were at least successful at helping Aileen Cannon delay the trial until after the election.

[rloquitur]

The prosecution is lucky that someone isn't in jail for contempt--recalled those scumbags lied to her about the evidence.

[SRG2]

And the defence is lucky that they have a judge who is slow-walking the case to death in order to avoid Trump's conviction.

[not guilty]

“The prosecution is lucky that someone isn’t in jail for contempt–recalled those scumbags lied to her about the evidence.”

Which prosecutor(s), and what false statement(s)? What fact(s), if any, evince willfulness?

Please be specific.

[David Nieporent]

You've got to stop getting your information from Julie Kelly. There were no lies about evidence, no evidence tampering, none of that.

[rloquitur]

Are you saying that Jack Smith's office did not admit in court filings that the facts were "inconsistent" with what had been previously represented to the court? And are you saying that the photos that had the folders with classification markers were accurately depicted what was in the boxes? Those photos create an obvious fair trial issue. You good with this?

[David Nieporent]

Those photos create an obvious fair trial issue. You good with this?

When police search drug dealers' homes, they routinely hold press conferences where they triumphantly announce the success of their anti-drug efforts; in front of them will often be big tables where they display all the contraband they've seized — drugs, cash, weapons, drug paraphernalia. All laid out, photo ready, for the tv cameras.) Do you think that doing so creates "an obvious fair trial issue"? Can you identify any case, anywhere, ever where an indictment in such a case was dismissed because such laying out such evidence at a press conference constituted either "evidence tampering" or "spoliation" (two claims made by Trumpkins) or a "fair trial issue" (your word choice)?

As to the original claim, the SCO previously said that the boxes were "in their original, intact form as seized" other than the replacement of the classified docs with placeholders, and then subsequently said that it was possible that some of the material within a given box may have shifted around within that box during search or in transit. Nothing about that is a "lie."

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

You are maybe mixing things up. This is easy to do given the breadth of legal jeopardy Trump faces.

Cannon is the Florida judge handling the classified documents case in Florida. This case relates to the DC-based charges against him by the Special Counsel for his actions in encouraging J6, which are on hold pending this charge -- so yes they did successfully delay that trial until after the election.

I am sure if the court were to rule for him here he would try to incorporate the ruling into his Florida defense, even though the crime occurred when he retained classified documents after being President, not any behavior as President. But that case is not being delayed by this ruling.

[Orbital Mechanic]

Below is a quote from the NY times, May 18:

"Finally, Judge Cannon has not yet addressed a single substantive issue that will determine what the trial looks like. The most difficult issues she needs to address lie ahead, including those involving presidential immunity, attorney-client privilege and, most important, how this highly classified information will be used and protected at trial. She won’t even start resolving these issues until August at the earliest — over 14 months after Mr. Trump was indicted."

[rloquitur]

The homeless one is very easy to write. There is no right to be free to sleep in a public park or sidewalk or to make an abode there. No right to do so can flow from the political subdivision's alleged lack of available housing.

[TextFirst]

It's a lunatic case in every possible way. It should be 9-0 in favor of Grant's Pass, so I hope that's the surprise opinion being drafted.

Historical/Originalism: At the time of passage of the 8th/14th Amendment, there were vagrancy laws. It's quite shocking that the people who passed and ratified those amendments didn't know how they worked.

Status/Conduct: It's can't a crime to be addicted to drugs. It can be crime to be drunk in public. Good thing these laws regulate conduct, not status!

Enforceability: On a practical basis, declaring that the homeless are immune to generally applicable laws is unworkable. The cops can't magically tell by looking at somebody whether they have a home. So enforcing the law would be both underinclusive (they might think someone is homeless when they're not) and overinclusive (they might think somebody has a home when they don't). If the lower court held that camping laws were unconstitutional period, then I still think it would be wrong, but at least less wrong; it wouldn't be a nightmare to enforce.

Limiting principle: If the Court establishes that the homeless are immune to the law, then is anything safe from them? All a bank robber has to do is say, "I was homeless and I needed money" and he walks away? Obviously, common criminals would simply choose to be strategically homeless to gain the legal shield.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a big difference between camping and sleeping.
Sleeping in one's legally registered and legally parked vehicle -- that's private property and I don't think the city has jurisdiction.

[TextFirst]

Sure-- although typically the cars are running and hence would violate an anti-idling statute. But assuming the cars are off and parked in a way that's not otherwise illegal, they're not bothering anybody.

[Drewski]

You two are honestly kind of hilarious, like children making up really bad house rules for Monopoly.

[Krychek_2]

Let me ask what should be an obvious question: If you are in fact homeless, and it is illegal to sleep in parks or on sidewalks, where are you supposed to sleep? You've got to sleep somewhere.

[TextFirst]

The laws in question are mere municipal laws. They can walk outside of city limits. Ideally, they can even stay there. State laws generally wouldn't reach sleeping in the middle of nowhere or, if they did, aren't really enforced realistically speaking. But more importantly: Those are political, not constitutional, questions. The voters can decide these issues and get to, as the Constitution does not address this issue. If you want a "homeless can sleep anywhere" amendment to the constitution, then the amendment process is well-known; get started.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think there is a constitutional right to sleep anywhere. I was homeless for two years and crashed in a lot of abandoned buildings, but I was guilty of trespassing every time I did it and would have had no cause for complaint had I been arrested.

The fact remains, though, that what you are proposing is a practical impossibility for many people. The services they need are frequently located in downtown and asking them to walk to and from the city limit every day is just not realistic. If you're going to place what is, in practice, an impossible burden on someone, don't be surprised if they then ignore you. And don't expect anything except scorn if your answer is that they have to do the impossible. I do think there is a constitutional issue with requiring people to do things they are not able to do.

[TextFirst]

What is and is not a practical impossibility is for the legislature and executive to determine. The homeless get the same vote everybody else does, they can vote and advocate accordingly. If they lose out in the democratic process, tough; I've been outvoted many times. You get used to it. Just crying "eh, it's too difficult for me to follow the law" does not and never has cut it as immunity.

I find it particular ironic that the "services" downtown end up as a justification for granting the homeless immunity from the law; the town was nice enough to offer services, so now its surrendered its park to the infestation. Sounds like their optimal move was not to offer services in the first place.

If people choose to flout the anti-camping law-- regardless of whether or not they claim homelessness-- then the criminal law comes in. The homeless encampments cause so much chaos and destruction that it honestly costs about the same to hold them in minimum security and at least this way the parks are clean. They also have the option of simply leaving town.

[Krychek_2]

No, what is and is not a practical impossibility is an objective question of fact that the judiciary is just as competent to decide as the political branches. And I don’t see how it’s constitutional to require something that is a practical impossibility.

You’re basically making the argument that the law in its majestic equality forbids both rich and poor to steal bread, sleep under bridges and beg in the streets.

[David Nieporent]

"You can legally be addicted to a drug outside city limits, so therefore we can criminalize being addicted to a drug inside city limits" is not a thing. (Even assuming that your premise is correct. (In New Jersey, there is no land outside city limits, by the way.))

The respondents in this case are not arguing that homeless people can sleep "anywhere." Just that one can't criminalize being homeless, so there has to be somewhere they can sleep. And since sleeping is involuntary, criminalizing sleeping outside is the equivalent of criminalizing homelessness.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I understand the people who are upset about the issue; like any sane person, I do not want homeless encampments taking over either sidewalks or public parks — either from the perspective of a neighbor or taxpayer. But at the same time, criminal law isn't the solution.

[Krychek_2]

And I would add this: I am more of a capitalist than anything else, though I probably support more regulation and higher taxes and more government services than most here. That said, I also recognize that one of the side effects of capitalism is that there will be people who aren't going to survive without help. And since capitalism is the system our society has chosen, I think it has a duty to take care of people who are adversely impacted by it.

I don't want to be Sweden, but I don't want to be Dickenesian England either.

[TextFirst]

They’re not criminalizing being addicted to drugs within city limits– they’re criminalizing sleeping within city limits for everybody. In the same sense it’s illegal for somebody to be high in public whether they’re an addict or just an enthusiast. The Ninth Circuit wrote a broad-reaching immunity to criminal law for the homeless that's nowhere in the actual document.

[David Nieporent]

they’re criminalizing sleeping within city limits

Again, sleeping is an involuntary behavior. You're doing "They're not criminalizing being epileptic; they're only criminalizing having epileptic fits."

In the same sense it’s illegal for somebody to be high in public whether they’re an addict or just an enthusiast.

In contrast, being high is not involuntary behavior. Addicts may have a strong desire to get high, but they can choose not to use drugs. Nobody can choose not to sleep.

[Doug Heffernan]

What sort of base freedom does a human being have to occupy the physical space that their body necessarily consumes after birth?

If the answer is that there is no such space unless it is obtained via a "properly" obtained post-birth property right, then the freedom to exist is not a natural necessary right but rather a contingent right that may possibly be purchased, or perhaps received via transfer from one's genetic ancestors.

[MaddogEngineer]

Assuming he was in the majority, there was never any doubt that the chief would have the Chevron redux opinion. I would say the same thing about the Trump immunity case, but I remain unsure whether he or anyone ends up with a majority for that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t think Idaho lost on the abortion case — see this from Barrett:

On top of that, petitioners have raised a difficult and con-
sequential argument, which they did not discuss in their
stay applications, about whether Congress, in reliance on
the Spending Clause, can obligate recipients of federal
funds to violate state criminal law. “

She wants the trial court to rule on that.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court could have directed the trial court to reconsider the injunction in light of changed circumstances and new arguments. Instead it left the injunction in place. The Ninth Circuit has every incentive to sit on the case for a few years.

[loki13]

"And Justice Alito will write for a very fractured Court in the social media cases."

Oh no. Please no.

Alito's First Amendment jurisprudence is, quite literally, the worst.

If Alito has a Netchoice majority opinion, I am very, very, very, very concerned.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think (hope) that's just Josh wish-casting.

Not for nothing, but I'm going to check in on this statement from Judge Oldham:

"Far from justifying pre-enforcement facial invalidation, the Platforms’ obsession with terrorists and Nazis proves the opposite. The Supreme Court has instructed that “[i]n determining whether a law is facially invalid,” we should avoid “speculating about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Overbreadth doctrine has a tendency . . . to summon forth an endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals, and this case is no exception."

https://x.com/wgnnews/status/1805957173270163598?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

Welp.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And, if I had to guess, Roberts will hold Chevron and Trump for Monday. Dump it during the Fourth of July weekend."

Another fine example of SCOTUS Justices behaving like cowardly politicians.

[David Nieporent]

1) Monday is not the Fourth of July weekend.
2) Since this hasn't happened anyway, it can't be an "example" of anything. Other than Blackman seeking attention, anyway.

[Area Man]

I too fear Jackson has Grant's Pass because the result will be a disaster for states, especially western states, trying to deal with a very difficult issue. It'll be ironic if two years ago the Court decided to get the federal courts out of the business of being abortion super-legislatures only to now have them get into the business of being super-legislatures on homeless policy. Assuming they do, it'll be the quintessential example of disconnected elites not having to deal with the day-to-day realities of their decisions so that they can feel good about themselves while state and local governments, and the citizens they represent, are left holding the bag.