SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

[Kepler]

United States v. Hansen - Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.

That is a lot. I'm taking "encouraging or inducing" as the First Amendment hook, so let's simplify to speech acts. Is a speech act advocating illegal activity for commercial advantage or private financial gain ever protected speech? Speech advocating illegal activity is certainly a protected form of protest. But. To make a buck?

Rocky: "Hey Bugs, knock over that bank and we can make a fortune."

Clancy: "Alright, Rocky. You're under arrest."

Rocky: "Nuh uh. Protected speech."

[dxmnkd316]

I got bored while eating lunch, so here's the rundown - Cases linked on title. Red cases are "significant" according to SCOTUSBlog.

I redid the math, looks like a good guess for remaining opinions is below. It assumes an even workload, but it won't matter if the cases are all decided 6-3 or 5-4 for the knucks. Most senior in the majority decides who writes (Roberts > Thomas > Alito, as I understand it).
Roberts - 4
Alito - 4
Thomas - 3
Sotomayor - 3
Kavanaugh - 3
Kagan - 1
Gorsuch - 1
Barrett - 1
Jackson - 1

If we somehow get 5 opinions, that's not great... It looks really bad for affirmative action. If Thomas has 3 opinions left, I'm assuming he gets both of those plus one of the March cases (or 1 + 2).
We had better hope Kagan or Roberts get that one. Otherwise, I think we're in deep fckin' trouble.
If Sotomayor truly has three left, they're most likely going to come for a March or April case.

November - 4 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Thomas, ALito, and Kavanaugh
My guess: Thomas x2 killing AA. Alito gets Jones and Roberts gets Mallory
Comments: That doesn't look great for affirmative action. Both Harvard and UNC are in November term.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. Harvard - (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. UNC - (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.
Jones v Hendrix - Whether federal inmates who did not ... challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. - Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.

December - 4 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.
My Guess: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts gets Moore, Alito gets TExas, 303 and EHR go to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Comments: Not great for Moore... Hopefully I'm wrong about the numbers and Kagan writes that (or roberts+libs+gorsuch/kav).....
US v. Texas- Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the DHS Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; Whether guidelines are contrary to other sections or violate administrative procedure act; whether 8 USC prevents entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" guidelines in 5 USC.
303 Creative v Elenis - Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
US v Executive Health Resources - Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.
Moore v. Harper - Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof," and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

February - 2 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts + Alito
Biden v. Nebraska - (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.)
Department of Education v. Brown - (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

March - 6 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson
My Guess: Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. But wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch gets Arizona and one of the listed moves to a December case.
Arizona v. Navajo Nation - This is related to Native American water rights.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal
United States v. Hansen - Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
Lora v. United States - Whether 18 U.S.C., which provides that "no term of imprisonment imposed... under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C.
Samia v. United States - Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.

April - 4 cases remaining:
Not Written Yet: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh haven't written.
Comments: Groff is a big one. I'd almost rather give up Groff if it means we have a better shot at Moore or the student loan cases.
My Guess: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh. Just because it's the hardest kick in the pants, I wouldn't be surprised to see Alito get Groff.
Groff v. DeJoy - (How far employers must go to accommodate religious practices of their employees.) - Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's coworkers rather than the business itself.
Pugin v. Garland - To qualify as "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?
Counterman v. Colorado - Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin - Whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances.

[dxmnkd316]

Couple more opinions. Two were related to native american cases. Oddly enough.

1. Lac du Flambeau Band v. Coughlin - Jackson (8-1, gorsuch) - The question is whether Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity in the bankruptcy code. The court holds that it did.
2. Haaland v Brackeen - Barrett (7-2, thomas & alito) - This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law that seeks to keep Native American children with Native American families. In child-custody proceedings in state court for the millions of Native American children who do not live on tribal land, ICWA establishes minimum standards for the removal of Native American children from their families and creates a preference that Native American children who are removed from their families be placed with extended family members or in Native foster homes.
3. Smith v US - Alito (9-0) - This case arose from the criminal prosecution of Timothy Smith, an Alabama software engineer and avid fisherman who was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison for hacking into the website of a Florida company that identifies and sells the locations of artificial fishing reefs. A federal appeals court agreed with Smith that he had been tried in the wrong place; the question for the justices is what the remedy for that mistake should be: Smith argued that he cannot be retried on that count anywhere, while the federal government contended (and the court of appeals agreed) that prosecutors can try him again somewhere else.

Side note, SCOTUSBlog picked up that in the LdFB v C case, Gorsuch cited his concurrence in the Haaland v Brackeen which was released later. Kinda weird.


There are something like 26 opinions remaining. Stats below for the already announced opinions. That suggests Alito, Roberts, and Kavanaugh will have an outsized share of the remaining cases. Especially Alito coming in at only 2 so far.

Roberts	3	9%
Thomas	4	12%
Alito	2	6%
Sotomayor	4	12%
Kagan	4	12%
Gorsuch	5	15%
Kavanaugh	3	9%
Barrett	4	12%
Jackson	4	12%
Per Cur.	1	3%

If you balance the remaining cases to give everyone as equal workload as possible, it could look something like this:

Roberts	3
Thomas	2
Alito	4
Sotomayor	2
Kagan	2
Gorsuch	1
Kavanaugh	3
Barrett	2
Jackson	2
Per Cur.

But the workload is rarely perfectly even.

[Kepler]

[Kepler]

Give them this mostly meaningless win to murder us with Moore v Harper at the end of the month?

That's the one that ends democracy.

These guys can count. They know their derps have maybe 20 years, tops, until they are completely overwhelmed by humans. They have to kill democracy now, or their feudal theocracy will end.

These are the English in 1830 looking at the actuarial tables and realizing they can have power or democracy but not both.

[bronconick]

I'm honestly shocked. Sure, at some point, if Roberts wants to reassert his chiefiness, he was going to have to buck Alito. But Kavanaugh is a total surprise.

Give them this mostly meaningless win to murder us with Moore v Harper at the end of the month?

[Handyman]

They probably made it so all the Black districts voted at one location inside of a Popeyes or something...

[Jimjamesak]

I mean how racist were these maps for Brett to rule this way

Pretty easy to guess. It is Alabama.

[Kepler]

I mean how racist were these maps for Brett to rule this way

Not enough for Thomas.

These sacks are the saddest.

[Swansong]

He did. Consistency isn't particularly important, except when it is.

[ScoobyDoo]

It sounds like he tepidly used stare decisis as a general reasoning, and the only material difference he had with Roberts' majority decision was that Roberts cited the effect-rule, and Kavanaugh was wishy washy on that.


note - I'm going by very preliminary summaries, so there could be much more

That's funny cause in the Roe decision he threw Stare Decisis out the window.

[Swansong]

I mean how racist were these maps for Brett to rule this way

It sounds like he tepidly used stare decisis as a general reasoning, and the only material difference he had with Roberts' majority decision was that Roberts cited the effect-rule, and Kavanaugh was wishy washy on that.


note - I'm going by very preliminary summaries, so there could be much more

[dxmnkd316]

Maybe he is on the wagon and in his moments of sobriety remembered his courses on civil rights?

I guess Thomas' ghost-wrote a scathing dissent...

ftfy

[Handyman]

Maybe he is on the wagon and in his moments of sobriety remembered his courses on civil rights?

I guess Thomas' wrote a scathing dissent...

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I mean how racist were these maps for Brett to rule this way