SCOTUS Watch
The justices will release opinions on Thursday. But we have some stuff already.
Order List
This week’s Order List was a bit long since the justices tossed back a death penalty case (7-2) because the lower court wrongly took into consideration evidence the jury didn’t see. No Kewpie doll for picking the two dissenters. Thomas dissented more.
They granted a case first sought by a pro se prisoner.
Also, the “bill of complaint” issue (two views) came up again. That is, the ability of the Supreme Court to avoid opining on a dispute among states that only they have the power to decide. I basically agree with Michael Dorf. Show your work.
Andrew Lukehart Execution
The Supreme Court disposed of his final appeal yesterday without comment, which is normal. It isn’t just something the conservatives do.
Andrew Lukehart, after previously being found guilty of child abuse, was sentenced to die in Florida for the death of a five-month-old child. He first made up a kidnapping story. That was thirty years ago.
Breyer explained why it is constitutionally and otherwise problematic to execute someone after all that time. Florida is making it a habit.
The final appeal included a standard red flag about Florida execution procedures. Old ground. It also added a novel argument that forcing him to choose an alternative means of execution (you must do so if you challenge the method) is a violation of his religious liberty. There is a federal statute protecting the religious liberty of prisoners.
His execution doesn’t provide much value, in my opinion, to the public welfare. Safeguarding children is precious. An arbitrary execution does little to advance it.
More Voting BS
I checked online and saw news that they dropped another opinion, unsigned, after 9 P.M. Happy Primary Day! Sotomayor dissented (respectively!) for the liberals.
Breaking: The Supreme Court, Over the Dissent of the 3 Liberal Justices, Allows Alabama to Use Maps that a Lower Court Found to Be Intentionally Discriminating Against Black Voters (Now Updated with Analysis–This is a Significant and Very Bad Ruling).
Rick Hasen, Election Law guy, argues the decision is “astounding.” In a fashion.
More and more, this Court shows itself to be little more than a partisan tool engaged in results-oriented jurisprudence, despite protestations to the contrary.
Keep that in mind when they, at times, 5-4, aren’t totally hacks.
ETA: They acted like normal judges on Thursday with three standard administrative law opinions. Only Thomas wrote separately.
8-1 or 9-0 cases are easy and encourage Roberts's minimalism. Don’t be misled.