mjsdc.bsky.social
Senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law. Dad to one toddler and several other animals.
1,379 posts
137,710 followers
601 following
Prolific Poster
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
On a recent panel I moderated, Deepak Gupta—who argued two of the three cases that got dismissed—speculated that the conservative justices' former clerks know exactly how to present these cases to SCOTUS to secure cert from their old bosses, obscuring vehicle problems that only emerge later on.
comment in response to
post
Kavanaugh dissents from the DIG in Labcorp and would have used the case as a vehicle to further hobble class actions. Nobody joins him! www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
comment in response to
post
It is notable that Sotomayor grounds her decision in both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause has had a brutal run at SCOTUS lately, and it's nice to Sotomayor reaffirm that it exists and still has legal force. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
comment in response to
post
I also appreciate that KBJ used the Ames opinion as an opportunity to effectively reaffirm Bostock as good precedent, without losing any votes. It's important that the decision be entrenched in Title VII law and not turned into a questionable outlier vulnerable to reversal.
bsky.app/profile/josh...
comment in response to
post
Some coverage of Ames was misleading because the facts of the case are icky, but legally this wasn't a close call and I think KBJ reaches the right result. Title VII protects individuals, not groups, and victims of discrimination shouldn't be kicked out of court because they're straight, white, etc.
comment in response to
post
Thomas concurs, joined by Gorsuch, reiterates his call for the court to reconsider the McDonnell Douglas framework, which courts use in Title VII discrimination cases. He actually has a pretty good point—the framework is made up and can seriously hurt workers. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
comment in response to
post
Pay attention everyone: this is the right wing’s play to outlaw abortion nationwide, and a panel of Republican federal judges appears to be coaching them on how to succeed next time.
comment in response to
post
Trump’s assault on the civil service was two-fold: grievously violate the rights of federal workers, then hobble the agencies responsible for protecting those rights so workers have no legal recourse.
Now the 4th Circuit says workers may be able to win relief straight from the courts instead.
comment in response to
post
🎯
comment in response to
post
OOPS. Obviously the wrong link. I'll redo, thanks!
comment in response to
post
Nearly half the states count late-arriving mail ballots that are sent by Election Day. But last year, the 5th Circuit ruled that these statutes are unlawful.
This case (Bost) will clear the way for SCOTUS to eventually resolve that issue. (I suspect a majority will disagree with the 5th Circuit.)
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/mjsd...
comment in response to
post
Note, too, that the Supreme Court declines to review Rhode Island's ban on large capacity magazines, which let shooters fire off a huge number of bullets without reloading. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would also take that case now. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
comment in response to
post
It will be pretty extraordinary if the Supreme Court says that the Constitution allows states to outlaw reproductive rights but does NOT allow states to outlaw assault weapons that mass shooters use to slaughter actual, living children in school.
But it will all come down to Roberts and Barrett.
comment in response to
post
Both Kavanaugh and Thomas say the Second Amendment protects any arms in "common use" by the citizenry. They won't admit it, but this is anti-originalist: The Second Amendment evolves to protect new kinds of weapons once a critical mass of Americans own them? Living constitutionalism at its finest!
comment in response to
post
But Kavanaugh—unlike Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—also says the lower courts should continue to consider the issue before SCOTUS intervenes.
I suspect Kavanaugh is really just worried that Roberts and Barrett will vote to uphold assault weapons bans and is just punting the issue due to that concern.
comment in response to
post
This case deals primarily with Maryland's ban on AR-15s. These rifles are mass shooters' weapon of choice due to their ability to inflict grievous bodily harm, liquifying organs and pulverizing bodies more efficiently than a handgun.
Kavanaugh says the Second Amendment likely protects AR-15s ...
comment in response to
post
An entire title of the U.S. Code that Clarence Thomas and the state of Texas believe to be unconstitutional
comment in response to
post
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, refuses to join Kavanaugh's majority opinion, saying it "unnecessarily" grounds its analysis "largely in matters of policy." (It's clear that Kavanaugh wants to weaken NEPA's restrictions on energy permitting.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
comment in response to
post
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion for the court seems to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act, saying it should not be a "substantive roadblock" to permit approval for energy projects. Energy companies will certainly rejoice at this holding. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...