Blog

Between 2009 and 2020, Josh published more than 10,000 blog posts. Here, you can access his blog archives.

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

Breaking: SCOTUS Halts Contraceptive Mandate Against Erie Diocese

June 29th, 2015

In an after-hours order (following an order putting on hold Texas’s abortion law), the Supreme Court ordered HHS to halt the enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against the Erie Diocese. Only Justice Sotomayor would have denied it.

The application for an order recalling and staying the issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, having been submitted to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court, the application as presented is denied. The Court furthermore orders: If the applicants ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in possession of all information necessary to verify applicants’ eligibility under 26 CFR §54.9815-2713A(a) or 29 CFR §2590.715-2713A(a) or 45 CFR §147.131(b) (as applicable), the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicants the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of their petition for certiorari.

Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicants’ or their organizations’ employees to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. Nor does this order preclude the Government from relying on the information provided by the applicants, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act. See Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).

This order should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits. Ibid. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.

In other words, the Court denied the request by the Diocese to put on hold the issuance of the mandate from the Third Circuit. Justice Sotomayor agreed that the request should be denied.

However, the Court continued that HHS is “enjoined from enforcing against the applicants the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations” so long as HHS already has all of the necessary information to ensure the employees receive the contraception. Justice Sotomayor did not join this part of the order.

 

5 “Disrespectful Dissents” This Term – Scalia had 4, Sotomayor had 1

June 29th, 2015

Commenter JusticeVC notes that this term there were 5 disrespectful dissents–that is a dissent not preceded by “respectfully.”

Justice Scalia had four.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama:

By playing along with appellants’ choose-your-own-adventure style of litigation, willingly turning back the page every time a strategic decision leads to a dead-end, the Court discourages careful litigation and punishes defendants who are denied both notice and repose. The consequences of this unprincipled decision will reverberate far beyond the narrow circumstances presented in this case.

Accordingly, I dissent.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Under the Constitution they approved, Congress may require Zivotofsky’s passport and birth report to record his birthplace as Israel, even if that requirement clashes with the President’s preference for neutrality about the status of Jerusalem.

I dissent.

Los Angels v. Patel:

Nevertheless, the Court today concludes that Los Ange- les’s ordinance is “unreasonable” inasmuch as it permits police to flip through a guest register to ensure it is being filled out without first providing an opportunity for the motel operator to seek judicial review. Because I believe that such a limited inspection of a guest register is emi- nently reasonable under the circumstances presented, I dissent.

But in fairness to Nino, he also repsectfully dissents at the end.

Because I believe that the limited warrantless searches authorized by Los Angeles’s ordinance are reasonable under the circumstances, I respectfully dissent. 

King v. Burwell:

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medi- caid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by liti- gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

As JustinVC notes, Nino’s Obergefell dissents was most certainly not respectful, but he didn’t close with the conventional “I dissent.”

Justice Sotomayor had one with Glossip v. Gross:

The contortions necessary to save this particular lethal injection protocol are not worth the price. I dissent.

 

Ted Cruz on his year with CJ Rehnquist

June 29th, 2015

Following up from my previous post about Cruz’s internet-porn-watching party with Justice O’Connor and Rehnquist, Sen. Cruz has a lengthy article at Politico concerning his year at the Court.

rehnquisttedcruz

Hubbs zings Powell:

Justice Lewis Powell, for example, was a colonel in World War II. “You know,” he once quipped to the chief, “I outrank you.” Without missing a beat, Rehnquist replied, “Not anymore.”

On the interview process:

I soon learned why Rehnquist spent so little time interviewing his law clerks. He was one of the most brilliant human beings on the planet. He could have done the job with his eyes closed and without a single assistant.

I met him in his spacious chambers at the back of the Supreme Court Building, right behind the courtroom. A tall man with thinning black hair, long sideburns and oversize glasses, he ambled up and offered me a chair. The chief wore big wide ties with floral patterns and Hush Puppies.

With his first question, I knew that my recommendation strategy had paid off. “You know, I’ve got two recommendations here from Charles Fried and Alan Dershowitz,” he said, in his deep, gentle voice. Rehnquist knew as well as anyone how diametrically opposed the two men were. He had a slight grin. “So, I wonder, how on earth is that possible?”

“Maybe one of them was confused,” I said. He laughed.

I told him a little about my background. When I described my father’s past, fighting in the Cuban Revolution, it piqued his interest. Afterward, when I recounted the interview to my dad, I kidded my father by telling him that I had described him as a communist guerrilla for Castro. My dad was horrified.

“I was never a communist!” he said indignantly. He was flabbergasted that the chief justice of the United States might have this mistaken impression.

As we continued talking, Rehnquist asked a question that seemed of great importance to him.

“Would you be willing to play tennis with me and my other clerks?”

He was, as I had learned, a devotee of the game. In fact, many of the clerks he tended to favor were skilled tennis players or even all-American athletes.

“Sure, sounds like fun,” I replied. I wanted the job badly, though I had to be honest. “I should tell you I’m not very good.”

Rehnquist laughed at what he apparently took for false modesty. What he didn’t know, but would soon learn, was that “not very good” was a boast bordering on hyperbole.

Apparently Souter ate his yogurt with fruit on the weekend:

David Souter had been appointed by President George H. W. Bush but fairly quickly became one of the more liberal justices. Raised in rural New Hampshire, he lived a simple, spartan life. When he hosted the clerks for lunch, he explained that each day he would have a bowl of yogurt. On the weekends he would have a bowl of yogurt, but with fruit.

I remember thinking, “He prefers it with fruit.” And it was interesting to me that he chose to deny himself that pleasure during the week.

Breyer apparently talks too loud about cases in public:

Justice Stephen Breyer, a 1994 Clinton appointee, can be delightfully charming. He did have a habit of speaking quite loudly about pending cases—in places like public restaurants. On occasion that would cause his clerks considerable consternation.

He has a great story about Justice Thomas, involving Notre Dame LawProf Rick Garnett:

With his welcoming demeanor and deep, hearty laugh—imagine Santa Claus bellowing “ho, ho, ho”—Clarence Thomas has carried out dozens of acts of kindness on the court, the kind never reported by the mainstream media. An illustrative story involved one of my co-clerks, Rick Garnett, who had worked the previous year as a clerk in Little Rock, Arkansas. There he and his wife had befriended and tutored a young African-American boy named Carlos. The boy had never left Arkansas before, but Rick and his wife paid to fly him up to D.C. Rick emailed all nine chambers at the court, saying that this young boy would be in town, and asking if any of the justices would be willing to meet with him. Two offices responded—those of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg is an incredibly talented lawyer and jurist, and it was very kind of her to meet with Carlos, but her prim demeanor is that of a legal librarian, and so it was difficult for her and the young boy from Arkansas to connect. Clarence Thomas understood the world that Carlos had come from.

At the end of their two-hour conversation, Carlos observed that Thomas was a Dallas Cowboys fan. (Thomas had a framed picture of himself with quarterback Troy Aikman in his office.) The kid was very impressed—that was way cooler than the Supreme Court—and Thomas noticed. So Thomas rose from his chair, walked to his desk, and showed the boy a Super Bowl ticket, encased in Lucite, and signed by Cowboys running back Emmitt Smith. He handed the ticket to the young man.

“I’m going to give you this,” Thomas said. “But I want you to promise me that you will get A’s in school next year.”

The young man, astonished and wide-eyed, nodded in agreement.

This story of the Chief and Ted taking a stroll down First Street is perfect:

The court heard about 80 cases during the term I clerked, and each of the chief’s clerks was responsible for knowing about one-third of them. It was a lot to juggle in your head without notes. And the way the chief justice liked to prepare for oral arguments could be disconcerting. He could come by our desks at any time to talk about a case.

“Ted,” he might say, “are you ready to discuss Smith v. Jones?”

We knew what came next. I’d say, “Yes, Chief,” and get up and go outside for a walk with him. Without any notes at my disposal we’d discuss that case’s merits.

As we strolled down First Street across from the U.S. Capitol, he’d say things like, “So, Ted, what did you think of the argument in footnote seventeen of the petitioner’s brief? I didn’t find it very persuasive.”

“Uh, I agree, Chief,” I’d respond, struggling to remember the footnote he was citing.

And tourists asked the Chief to take their pictures in front of the Court:

We would do laps around the building. A kindly looking gentleman, often wearing a cap, Rehnquist was frequently stopped on the street by tourists asking him, a passerby, to take photographs of their families standing in front of the Supreme Court or the Capitol. He was so down-to-earth, so approachable, that he could be as comfortable with a plumber as he could a poet. And he was hardly ever recognized.

Each time he was stopped to take a photo, the chief would smile and say gamely, “Sure.”

To this day, hundreds of people have had their picture taken in front of the Supreme Court by the chief justice of the United States and never knew it. That made him chuckle.

The Chief’s lunch was not quite as spartan as Souter’s but pretty bare.

He was not a man of airs. For lunch, he would usually order the same thing—a simple menu of a cheeseburger and a Miller Lite, or as he called it, “a Miller’s Lite.” And he’d smoke a single cigarette. His townhome in Arlington, Virginia, was modest; there were no signs of pretense or grandeur. Sometimes he had the clerks over to play charades. My favorite memory of him remains the time he grabbed a slip of paper, fell to the ground, and lay on his belly pantomiming firing a rifle. “Pow! Pow!” he called out. (No one told the chief that you didn’t talk in charades.) His charade was “All Quiet on the Western Front.”

In the biggest cases of the term, the Liberal Justices never voted with the Conservative Justices

June 29th, 2015

Tom Goldstein offers a quick analysis of the four liberal justices, four conservative justices, and Justice Kennedy.

I also considered the 10 cases I consider most significant.  Of those, the left prevailed in 8.  Those included the first 7 of the Term.  (I mention the early cases to give a sense of how the results must have appeared inside the Court as the Term went along.)  The right prevailed in 2, both in the final sitting of the Term.

In the 10, no Justice on the left voted with the right; the four Justices on the left voted together in every one of those cases.  A Justice on the right voted with the left 4 times.  Those votes determined the outcome in 2 cases, because Justice Kennedy voted for the more conservative result.

Note that the analysis above is skewed against finding the Term particularly liberal by treating Justice Kennedy as the Court’s “center.”  That is true ideologically, but he is certainly a conservative.  If he were characterized that way for my analysis, the number of defections to the left would be much higher.

By that measure, a Justice on the right voted with the left 25 times (compared with 3 times the reverse happened).  That occurred in all 10 of the 10 major cases (because no Justice on the left voted with the right in any of those cases), and determined the outcome in all of them.

Ted Cruz Watched Hard Core Porn With CJ Rehnquist and J. O’Connor for Reno v. ACLU

June 29th, 2015

During the October 1996 term, Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurred in part and dissented in part in Reno v. ACLU.

I write separately to explain why I view the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) as little more than an attempt by Congress to create “adult zones” on the Internet. Our precedent indicates that the creation of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a “zoning law” that passes constitutional muster.

In his new book, Sen. Ted Cruz, who clerked for the Chief, that the two Justices apparently asked a librarian to show them how easy it was to find hardcore porn on the internet. The Washington Post has the report:

Cruz served as a law clerk to then Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. One day, he was standing behind Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“We were in front of a large computer screen gazing at explicit, hard-core pornography,” Cruz wrote.

The reason? The court was considering a case challenging a law that regulated online porn. The clerks were older and not well-versed in the Internet, so court librarians set up a tutorial for the justices and their clerks on how easy it was to find porn online. Cruz watched as the librarian typed in the word “cantaloupe,” though it was misspelled.

“A slew of hard-core, explicit images showed up onscreen,” he wrote. “As we watched these graphic pictures fill our screens, wide-eyed, no one said a word. Except for Justice O’Connor, who lowered her head, squinted slightly, and muttered, ‘Oh, my.'”

Sandra Day Oh My.