Justice Kagan recently wrote that the "current Court is textualist only when being so suits it.”
I have a new draft paper on this: “Permissive Interpretation.” Comments welcome!
I’d just like to thank the talented, hard-working editors at
@IowaLawReview
again for publishing and doing such great work on my recent essay. Student editors generally deserve more credit from profs for what is too often a thankless job (or worse).
@AshaRangappa_
@earlymodjustice
Isn’t this passage consistent with a pro immunity view? The passage explicitly envisions prosecution after impeachment and removal, doesn’t it?
I'm very excited to be joining
@UVALaw
this fall! But I'm also going to miss my friends, mentors, colleagues, and students
@UCLA_Law
, where I have spent six terrific years and started my academic career. Thank you all.
“Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test.”
Good line from Justice Barrett today (Vidal v Elster)
Hypothesis: Justice Jackson can more easily deploy liberal originalism because, unlike her left colleagues, she hasn’t spent the last several years exalting precedent to protect Roe.
Fred Schauer Has Passed, : It is with a heavy heart that I report that Fred Schauer passed yesterday, Sunday, the first of September, 2024. I have known Fred for almost forty years. At the very beginning of my academic career, Fred provided comments on my
What is the best descriptive effort to explain the conservative turn against Chevron in non-cynical terms?
(The obvious cynical explanation is that, after the 1980s, Rs increasingly controlled the courts rather than agencies.)
Two kinds of judicial fearlessness: (1) doing what’s right even when it’s contrary to “elite” opinion; (2) doing what’s right even when it will disappoint or frustrate your allies, or the people who put you on the bench. Folks seem to focus opportunistically on one or the other.
I'd like to thank the student editors of
@TexasLRev
. Despite a pandemic year and a weather crisis in TX, the editors did a fabulous job improving my paper and bringing it to publication. 👏
This piece by
@adamliptak
thoughtfully discusses my new paper, with great critical thoughts by Prof Allison Orr Larsen: "Problem of ‘Personal Precedents’ of Supreme Court Justices"
While reading ‘textualist’ defenses of the MQD, I’m starting to worry that new lawyers won’t know what textualism is. Or was.
For example, doing what feels to you like ‘common sense’ isn’t textualism.
And, to be legitimate non-textualism, the ‘sense’ must actually be ‘common.’
@lsolum
Justice Kagan just quoted Vermeule extensively and called him one of “the finest administrative law scholars of” our time. (See the Loper Bright dissent.)
My sense is that there are a lot more “no, let me finish what I’m saying” moments at SCOTUS oral arguments recently—both by justices and by advocates. Anyone else have this impression? Feels like a norm shift.
I’ve heard this sort of view before, sometimes the other way around—ie, ‘Scalia is highly persuasive to students and new lawyers, but almost only to them.’
Would be interesting to test empirically.
RIP Sandra Day O'Connor. As Mark Twain might have said, when I was a law student, her opinions were so unpredictable I could hardly stand to read them, but when I got to be a grown-up lawyer, I was astonished at how intelligible they became.
This sharp rhetoric between left justices is helpful. It shows that harsh rhetoric is just a fact of life now at SCOTUS. Its presence in a case doesn’t prove that anyone is evil and/or incompetent.
McConnell: “in my opinion, we should seek the narrowest, most precise, least susceptible to abuse, definition that is consistent with history and precedent.”
What type of originalism is this? Is it one at all? (This isn’t a criticism. A sincere question.)
Will we soon see an anti-institutionalist Supreme Court justice? That is, a justice who doesn’t just disagree about how to keep the institution legitimate or worry it might become illegitimate, but who claims that the institution is already, and perhaps irreparably, illegitimate?
Justice Jackson’s dissent today is captioned in part for Case No. 20-1199, but includes a footnote saying that she didn’t participate in Case No. 20-1199.
That’s recusal at SCOTUS.
@AshaRangappa_
@earlymodjustice
Ok, but that doesn’t help your point. And your original allegation of contradiction or change of mind, based on the passage you quoted from and reproduced, is unfounded.
At any rate, I’m glad that you’re giving Kavanaugh’s paper a wider readership! It’s a good essay.
Decency, courage, humor.
It’s striking how many people associate these ideas with Fred (and, here, also with Sherry Colb, another great scholar).
To be truly great, a person must also be good.
The justices’ statements regarding Justice O’Connor are moving and apt, but they also do work: they shore up collegial, non-partisan norms in an institution that needs them.
(My favorites are by Justices Barrett and Breyer—quite different, both great.)
Man, I remember when the Questions Presented section was actually just the Questions Presented and not a mini-Summary of Argument. I absolutely detest this.
In "Does the Discourse on 303 Creative Portend a Standing Realignment?",
@RichardMRe
argues that criticism that 303 Creative was a “fake” case brought by someone because “she worries” is unfounded; the discourse may portend an ideological reversal in federal court jurisdiction.
In recent years, R-appointed federal judges have been criticized for playing to their ideological base and uncritically absorbing ill-founded memes.
This behavior is now becoming bipartisan.
In one of the first rulings to cite the recent Supreme Court case involving LGBT rights, a Mississippi judge applies the new "worries" test to establish standing.
I’m curious about what’s driving the “record-breaking number of submissions” this cycle. Eg, is this delayed 2020 work? Some authors being extra productive? Is there any data on this?
@scholasticaLR
Authors: By now many of you have noticed our Scholastica portal has closed. Selection went far more quickly than anticipated, in part because of the record-breaking number of submissions received this year. We recognize this is not the result we promised, and we apologize.
Possibly under-appreciated line from Kagan’s Warhol dissent: “the majority does something novel (though in law, unlike in art, it is rarely a good thing to be transformative).”
Judge Easterbrook in 2004:
“Both on and off the bench, Justice Scalia has proclaimed himself a fan of Chevron. It is hard to find thoroughgoing critics of that case and the doctrine it summarizes.”
That was 20yrs after Chevron. Another 20yrs later, Chevron may be overruled.
Judicial opinions often start off with language like “opinion concurring in part” or “dissenting” and so forth. What do or should we call that set of expressions?
Alito just now, asking explicitly: isn’t it important that *someone* have standing?
This is relative standing, consistent with the subtext of Clapper (by Alito). See below.
At oral argument last year in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Justice Kagan criticized substantive canons and wondered: "Maybe we should just toss them all out...?"
Now, this paper:
I've posted a new draft on SSRN—"The Incompatibility of Substantive Canons and Textualism"—co-authored with my
@Harvard_Law
colleague Matthew Stephenson. Here's the link, and the abstract is below. Comments very welcome!
@JRubinBlogger
Yes, I am.
I see that Justice Sotomayor quotes the word “worries.” Do you see her arguing there is no standing or jurisdiction?
Also, the majority invoked the “credible threat” standard.
Some academics reject the distinction between science and advocacy and then are surprised policymakers don't listen to them.
What makes academics credible in the policy world is our rigorous methods and rules of evidence. If we throw those out for the sake of "the cause",
Alito just now, asking explicitly: isn’t it important that *someone* have standing?
This is relative standing, consistent with the subtext of Clapper (by Alito). See below.
Arguably true of all amicus briefs by extension. Briefs joined by a ton of groups, even expert groups, are often/usually just symbolic or the result of politics.
This comparison makes the rhetoric here even more striking. This isn’t a once-in-a-generation con law ruling that divided 5-4 along ideological lines.
Kagan is on the short side of a 7-2 decision regarding copyright, and the majority author is her ideological ally.
Balkinization: Richard Re on "The One Big Question"
Many thanks to Andy Coan, Rebecca Aviel, David Schwartz, Eunice Lee, Shalev Roisman and Bernadette Wilkinson for putting on the conference!
Justices Thomas and Barrett have offered some deep defenses of their legal views.
The result: key claims rest on intuitions that are plausible yet controversial.
That isn’t embarrassing. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are ruling illegitimately.
It’s just helpful to see.
@jacklgoldsmith
The post ends: “it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist demagogue. Only politics, not law, can do that.”
Today, the legal left often wants to emphasize democracy over judicial power. But that posture is conducive to recent scotus rulings such as Dobbs and Anderson.
How to navigate that tension/conflict may be the left’s most pressing intellectual challenge. How can it be done? /1
Balkinization: Richard Re on "The One Big Question"
Many thanks to Andy Coan, Rebecca Aviel, David Schwartz, Eunice Lee, Shalev Roisman and Bernadette Wilkinson for putting on the conference!
Many Dobbs supporters argued that the case returned abortion to the political process, while many critics noted the ruling was unpopular.
The Harvard affirmative action ruling flipped those talking points.
What can we learn from this?
Justice Sotomayor regularly comes in for left criticism when she praises her colleagues, such as for being good people.
One mark of an anti-institutionalist justice would be a refusal to do this.
“The most remarkable thing about the Court’s federalism-based resolution, which all nine Justices approved in large measure, is that it was not among the ten or more arguments that the parties… presented to the Court, nor is it… in the many law review articles about Section 3”
It has been the greatest honor of my career to write the Foreword for this term's
@HarvLRev
. I am grateful to have been able to tell this story and to tell it from the heart in such a prominent forum. As always, I dream of a day when words can change minds and hearts--and worlds.
@EdWhelanEPPC
@benshapiro
Yes,
@benshapiro
seems clearly wrong here. I clerked for Kavanaugh several years ago, and it is hard to imagine a clearer textualist record. Also, Kavanaugh's bracing
@HarvLRev
piece marks him as a cutting-edge textualist thinker.
A GREAT example of why refs get verbally abused at every game ever!
90% (or higher) of people have no freaking clue what the actual rules are!!
Announcers were wrong. Fans were wrong. Even the NC State coach was wrong.
And I’m guessing most still don’t know they are wrong🤦🏼♂️
My sense is that there are a lot more “no, let me finish what I’m saying” moments at SCOTUS oral arguments recently—both by justices and by advocates. Anyone else have this impression? Feels like a norm shift.
… Fischer today is a great example.
The majority (Roberts) agrees that the dissent’s reading (Barrett) may be “literally permissible”, but emphasizes “the context in which the statute arose.”
So the majority is applying the mischief rule and the dissent the literal rule.
Is it possible that the left’s alarm about SCOTUS cases this term handed the Court a public relations boon?
By creating expectations of big losses in so many cases, the left made the Court seem moderate whenever it defied the expectations.
Not to belabor this, but is it at all plausible that Jackson didn’t “participate in the consideration” of the Harvard case?
Her dissent responds to a majority opinion about both cases. And that majority opinion responds to her points!!
Another front in the standing realignment.
Recently, conservatives were standing skeptics in abortion cases brought by doctors, and liberals were enthusiasts.
That alignment seems poised to reverse.
Double hearsay, but interesting: "Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told us recently that his long-time friend and colleague Antonin Scalia told him before he died that even he would not have sought to overturn Roe today."
“The Abortion Scare Campaign: Why Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage are likely to survive after Kennedy.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.