Justice Kagan Does Not Like INS v. Chadha

Another interesting aside in the Royal Canin oral argument.

Another interesting tidbit from the oral argument in Royal Camin USA v. Wullschleger concerned what weight the Court should give unanimity on a question among the lower courts of appeals. (In this case, the lower courts of appeals have treated the post-removal amendment of a complaint in one way, but there is an argument the relevant statutory requires a different result.)

In the exchange, Justice Kagan suggests she is not a fan of INS v. Chadha (the decision in which the Court held that a unicameral legislative veto is unconstitutional).

From the transcript:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, we have had cases where we came out the other way than every court of appeals had come out, right?

MR. KELLER: Yes, you have, Mr. Chief Justice.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Like what?

MR. KELLER: I think there are—that's a great question.

(Laughter.)

MR. KELLER: And none spring to mind, but I am positive that I can find some.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Central Bank?

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I mean, it's pretty bold to take the position without knowing one.

MR. KELLER: Fair. Mea culpa.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Was that—was that the case in Chadha?

MR. KELLER: INS versus Chadha?

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. KELLER: I—I don't know. I apologize.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Somebody will check. I just —

JUSTICE KAGAN: Gosh, I'm not sure which way that cuts.

(Laughter.)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm not sure that's true. I just have it in the back of my
mind, but—okay.