The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Puts Skrmetti SDP Case Out Of Its Misery
The ACLU's cert petition is denied, and several other petitions are GVR'd.
Last week I speculated what would happen to the ACLU's cert petition in Skrmetti that raised the Due Process issue. I wondered if the Court would GVR the parental rights issue in light of Mahmoud.
Today's order list denied review in L.W. v. Skrmetti. There were no recorded dissents. It seems the Due Process claim is now dead. The Tennessee law, and others like it, will now go into effect.
Indeed, the Court GVR'd several related cases. First, West Virginia excluded treatment for gender dysphoria from Medicaid. The Fourth Circuit held this exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause. Second, North Carolina excluded treatment for gender dysphoria from the state employee health plan. The Fourth Circuit likewise ruled against the state. Third, Idaho denied Medicaid coverage for sex-reassignment surgery. After Skrmetti was argued, the Ninth Circuit found this exclusion was unlawful.
These issues will bubble back to the Court in a year or so. Let's see if the Fourth Circuit can see the writing on the wall. Speaking of which, guess which Circuit was the "Biggest Loser" at the Court this term? No, it was not my beloved Fifth Circuit.
David Lat explains (based on Adam Feldman's Stat Pack):
Some circuits got reversed a lot. Subjectively and anecdotally, it felt to me that the Fifth Circuit took it on the chin this Term in terms of reversals. But if you look at reversals in percentage terms, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits were the most reversed, all with a 100 percent reversal rate—based on two, eight, four, and five cases decided by SCOTUS, respectively. So with a 0-8 record before the justices, the Fourth Circuit was the "biggest loser," in terms of the court with the highest reversal rate and the highest total number of cases. (The Ninth Circuit had three cases that were dismissed as improvidently granted.)
The Fifth Circuit didn't do that badly. The Fifth Circuit had the most total cases reversed (10), and some were high-profile—such as Bondi v. VanDerStock (a statutory-interpretation case about "ghost guns"), Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (an Appointments Clause challenge to an Affordable Care Act-created task force), and FCC v. Consumers Research (a nondelegation challenge to the FCC's "universal service" scheme). But the Fifth Circuit wound up with a 77 percent overall reversal rate, since it was also affirmed in three appeals—including the closely followed Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (a First Amendment challenge to an age restriction for pornography websites).
I think the reversal rate should include GVRs as well.
Stay tuned for more.
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
ACLU due process petition
Is the ACLU trying to protect kids from being chemically and surgically mutilated or trying to protect the quack portion of the medical profession's income stream? Whose rights are the ACLU trying to protect?
The ACLU's right to legal fees, and the democrat party's right to massive donations from lawyers.
I think the reversal rate should include GVRs as well.
And how about cert (and other orders) granted or denied?
We need a points scale.
1 pt for cert denied
-1 for DIG
1 pt per justice vote to uphold
-1 pt per justice to overturn
+/- 1 bonus pt per written opinion to uphold/overturn
-3 pts for GVR
Emergency docket/interlocutory appeals worth 50%
Maybe we can have a circuit court fantasy league next year.
Neither the reversal rate nor this point scale would work well.
Justices grant cert to reverse. If the case is boring, they don't grant cert unless it's needed to circuit splits. Reversal rate is therefore expected to be high. Meanwhile, the points system would just reflect the workload of CoA.
I guess the most balanced way is like, using the number of petitions with a response filed (deduplicated for consolidated case) as the denominator.
The Fourth Circuit fairly apply the law? They will Bruen the hell out of this case. They will find a reason to rule that excluding child mutilation from Medicaid is distinguishable from Skrmetti. The Court will hear this again in 2027.
The only way to reconcile SCOTUS concern for parental rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor with its lack of concern for such rights in Skrmetti is to posit that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, but only in such a manner that five black robed hatemongers on SCOTUS approve.
Protecting young children from exposure to reading materials teaching LGBTQ tolerance is a fundamental right of the highest order. After all, as Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein wrote, "To hate all the folks that your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAls_gUhlQw
Either that, or because Mahmoud was decided on 1A grounds, not Due Process Clause (which is probably more likely).
The decision in Mahmoud also relied on Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), a substantive due process case which predate incorporation of the Free Exercise clause upon the states.
This is result oriented hatemongering, (im)pure and simple.
Allegedly, the presence of "hybrid rights" factored in, so it wasn't just a 1A case.
The Tennessee law, and others like it, will now go into effect.
TN law has always been in effect since the CA6 decision, isn't it?
I am thinking that if you're being reversed at such high rates . . . that district court federal judges might just not know what the fuck they're doing?
Or, like the notorious Judge Reinhardt, know exactly what they're doing. A circuit in rebellion can maintain local policy contrary to Supreme court precedent for a considerable amount of time, if they deliberately refuse to take a hint, because the Court lacks both the time and for most issues, the resolve, to force the lower courts into compliance.
Yes, this is not incompetence but a malevolent tactic of rebellion or sedition.
"I think the reversal rate should include GVRs as well."
That has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, making the metric less suited for a baseball-style statistical analysis. An Oklahoma abortion funding case (24-437) was sent back for further consideration in light of Medina v. Planned Parenthood, which had nothing to say about the question presented. Who won?