Predictions For The Remaining 15 Cases

Barring any surprises, I do not expect any surprises.

Today the Court decided five new cases, including the blockbuster Skrmetti decision. I will have much more to say about that case in due course. For now, I will note that last night I concluded my post on Justice Barrett with this line:

There is always hope for tomorrow.

Indeed, tomorrow--that is today--brought hope! I try to be open-minded, and will treat each decision on its own terms. Based on my quick skim, there is a lot to be hopeful about.

Now, for predictions.

Based on my count, there are fifteen outstanding decisions. (Please email me if I've made any errors.)

All of the cases have been decided from the October, November, and December sittings.

In the January sitting, eleven cases were argued, and one was decided Per Curiam (remember TikTok?). There are five cases not yet decided: Hewitt, Stanley, Free Speech Coalition, McLaughlin, and R.J. Reynolds. Five Justices have not yet written: Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. I don't have any strong feelings about the assignments. I think that Free Speech Coalition will go to a Justice who raised kids in the digital age: either Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Jackson.

In the February sitting, eight cases were argued. Two remain outstanding: Gutierrez and Esteras. Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett have not yet written for that sitting. Barrett probably has Gutierrez, a case about jurisdiction. Sotomayor, the former district court judge, probably has Esteras, a sentencing case.

In the March sitting, nine cases were argued. Four cases remain outstanding: Louisiana  v. Callais, Riley v. Bondi, FCC v. Consumers' Research, Fuld v. PLO, and Medina v. Planned Parenthood. Justice Thomas was assigned two EPA cases from this sitting, so he is done. That means one Justice likely does not have an assignment. Who has not yet written: Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. I think the Chief will keep the Planned Parenthood case for himself. I think Alito has Callais, the Voting Rights case. I think Roberts assigned Consumers' Research to either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, as they both have interest in delegation. Barrett has Riley, a nerdy jurisdictional case. And I think Kagan has the PLO case, which involves the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In the April sitting, ten cases were argued, and two were dismissed PC. Three remain outstanding: Kennedy v. Braidwood, Mahmoud, and Diamond Alternative Energy. Four justices have not yet written from April: Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson. I can see Roberts giving Justice Kagan Braidwood, after all of her bitter Appointments Clause dissents. She will have the satisfaction of reversing the Fifth Circuit. I hope Alito has Mahmoud, but Roberts could let Jackson write something narrow and harmless. Whoever didn't get Braidwood or Mahmoud will draw the short straw with Diamond.

The rest of the term seems fairly predictable. Barring any surprises, I do not expect any surprises.

Of course, my predictions are usually wrong, so please discount everything I wrote.

Comments

[Area Man]

Looks like Barrett's concurring and dissenting opinions from today were pretty "conservative." Are you still going to find a way to throw a hissy fit about her? Are you still going to blatantly contradict yourself and attempt to gaslight everyone into believing you didn't say something you clearly did? In other words, are you going to continue lying?

[Mark Regan]

Your post says there are four as yet undecided cases from the March sitting, but it lists five cases -- but then it leaves the Louisiana redistricting case out of its discussion.

You'd think the Chief Justice would have that case. He might have Medina v. Planned Parenthood, too, but that would leave a couple of Justices without an assignment.

[MaddogEngineer]

I'm not sorry today's ACB opinions are happening to you.

[Stuart]

"so please discount everything I wrote." Don't worry, I already have.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not so. If you actually had, you wouldn't have commented here, let alone read the fine article.

[Purple Martin]

I realize you, as the resident Josh Apologist™ here, feel you must return fire at the snipers. But, reading your comment and being familiar with your past work, I discount it.

That is to say, I discount its argument as far as you believe it's rational support of your point. But it was not only possible, but necessary to read it in order to discount it.

I apply that principle to most of the commenters (and EV bloggers) here. You, for example write the occasional useful comment—knowledgeable, accurate, well-supported—as long as you stick to economics. Others have a history demonstrating such consistent uselessness—unknowledgeable, inaccurate, unsupported, repetitive—that prejudgment of their comments is warranted, thus appearing to me only as grey boxes. Such automated triage saves me a lot of time.

Oh, and there's a third class of useless (for all the same reasons) but entertaining. Dr. Ed 2 is of course the primary example among the commentariat, so I don't block him. And, of course, Josh represents the VC bloggers in that—I wouldn't block him if I could (I do admit to just skimming the more repetitive stuff).

This has been a Public Service Announcement. We now return you to your regular programming.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Barring any surprises, I do not expect any surprises. "

Ok, I think you're probably on safe ground there.

[Purple Martin]

Where's the laugh emoji when you need it?

We both understand Josh is trying for a clever quip here, but I don't think saying unless I'm wrong I don't expect to be wrong does as much clever work as he thinks it does.

His following sentence seems the more useful point.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

Weird to say there are 15 cases remaining (there are 16, but you miscounted the 5 March cases as 4, even though you mentioned 5 of them), and then write a piece where you mention 14 (15 correcting your count) of those cases and ignore probably the most explosive of the remaining 16... Weird!

[Kleppe]

I actually laughed out loud at the last sentence. That was a good closer.