SCOTUS Term 25-26

[Finance85]

So, about that Rastafarian (Mr. Lindor)...

First, let me just be really clear about one thing. I hope to God those prison guards have long since been fired and never work in anything within 100 miles of law enforcement again.

But having looked at the decision, I can sorta now see how they came out the way did, and that 'way' reflects an emerging theme that is going to be important in other contexts. So by way of background, the suit was filed against the state and the guards in their personal capacities under the Religious land use and institutionalized persons act, which is supposed to protect religious rights of prisoners. The act was authorized solely under the spending clause, however, and authorizes lawsuits for money against recipients of federal funds who violate the rights of prisoners. So far, so good.

Here, Mr. Lindor originally sued both the state and the guards, but for reasons that aren't stated (perhaps a settlement), he dropped his claims against the state and went solely against the guards in their personal capacity. Where it gets interesting is that in prior cases, the court has said that for statutes authorized solely under the spending clause, lawsuits for money as a remedy can only be allowed if the defendant has consented to suit (usually, by accepting the money). Here, the guards are not federal grant recipients, the state was, and in the absence of consent they therefore couldn't otherwise be sued for money in their personal capacity.

And that's the broader interesting piece...courts (mostly, to date, lower courts) have been toying around with this theme of 'spending clause laws are different' (and rightfully so given the constitutional history which is relatively clear that it wasn't a carte blanche authorization to regulate beyond the other enumerated powers). In my world, the interesting case I'm watching, relating to drug pricing, is whether state laws are subject to more aggressive preemption if they attach changes that upset the bargain set in a federal spending power program. I suspect they won't, but that's teed' up in the fourth circuit.

Good lawyers can often come up with a legal theory that is really close to the legal language of a statute. It seems that was the case here. It seems like the SCOTUS granted cert here to ward off what they may be seeing as future cases against the federal government and employees acting in a malicious fashion to violate civil rights. Well, at least they are taking away this particular argument.

BTW, there are plenty of really bad ambulance chaser types that go beyond novel applications of the law and make frivolous claims. They need to be sanctioned and pay fines, IMHO.

 

[Aardvark86]

Good lawyers can often come up with a legal theory that is really close to the legal language of a statute. It seems that was the case here. It seems like the SCOTUS granted cert here to ward off what they may be seeing as future cases against the federal government and employees acting in a malicious fashion to violate civil rights. Well, at least they are taking away this particular argument.

BTW, there are plenty of really bad ambulance chaser types that go beyond novel applications of the law and make frivolous claims. They need to be sanctioned and pay fines, IMHO.

Yeah, I think they're always going to be a little more circumspect about money damages claims when governmental entities or employees are involved. Are they a good enforcement tool? Yes, but sometimes no (when, as you note, theories get pressed to the point where no one could restructure behavior to comply or have foreseen the risk, which obviously was not the case here).

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[lucas80]

It's going to be funny in a sad way when this SCOTUS yanks hard on the Executive Branch when a Dem is in the White House. It was funny in a sad way seeing that Amy Comey Barrett is paving the way for Stephen Miller to denaturalize and deport her two kids from the sh**hole country.

 

[Aardvark86]

So I was on the road and cranking on a project most of yesterday (and will be again today) and didn’t get a chance to take a peek at these until late in the evening.

the two immigration cases, for better or worse, are statutory rather than constitutional cases. The majority’s readings of the language are certainly plausible ones on that front, whatever one thinks of the policy choices. And the good news, I suppose, is that as statutory cases, Congress can change the statute. (Btw re devines comments, the humanitarian point is the one that counts, not the cheap labor).

Monsanto wasn't terribly surprising, given the way that drug product label preemption claims have hone.

haven’t had much chance to dig into Hawaii. Airplane/vacation reading I guess for tomorrow. Another big day Monday - looks like the chief and kav are going to be doing a lot of talking.

 

[Finance85]

Hawaii was the most interesting to me. The majority focused on common law, common sense, and Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

I found the dissent to be a bit tortured in it's logic. The dissent seemed to focus on Hawaii's tradition regarding firearms rather than the US tradition on firearms. Ummm.... Hawaii joined the United States. It wasn't a merger, and Hawaii is still expected to adhere to the Bill of Rights just as they adhere to the Commerce Clause they embrace.

I do like reading the opinions because some of them give me the opportunity to see how other people think. SCOTUS justices are often way more creative than I am.

It was actually pretty simple - if businesses open to the public don't want to allow firearms, they just put up a sign saying so.

 

[Aardvark86]

Good morning. Heavy rains in glacier mean a delay to today’s hike. So I get to see opinions coming out in the next few minutes.

first up Watson/ Election Day case. Votes received after but postmarked before can be counted. 5-4 from Barrett, with cjr, Soto, Jackson, kagan. Ought to be a good read. Likely correct. But note the court granted cert in a pa case about requiring a date on mail ballots.

now chatrie! From kagan. 6-3. Geofence warrant was a fourth search requiring probable cause. Huge case. Expectations of privacy in cell phone location data. Remand for pc assessment.

Now slaughter and cook, from the chief. Slaughter is fired, cook is not. Humphreys is overruled in the process though. Slaughter appears to be the more important one as it seems to be the demise of independent agencies and cook may have been more due process related.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Good morning. Heavy rains in glacier mean a delay to today’s hike. So I get to see opinions coming out in the next few minutes.

first up Watson/ Election Day case. Votes received after but postmarked before can be counted. 5-4 from Barrett, with cjr, Soto, Jackson, kagan. Ought to be a good read. Likely correct. But note the court granted cert in a pa case about requiring a date on mail ballots.

now chatrie! From kagan. 6-3. Geofence warrant was a fourth search requiring probable cause. Huge case. Expectations of privacy in cell phone location data. Remand for pc assessment.

Now slaughter and cook, from the chief. Slaughter is fired, cook is not. Humphreys is overruled in the process though. Slaughter appears to be the more important one as it seems to be the demise of independent agencies and cook may have been more due process related.

Geofence opinion here.

I’m waiting for @NorthernHawkeye to weigh in on how Iowa DCI still got it right in investigating Iowa player betting.

 

[Aardvark86]

Geofence opinion here.

I’m waiting for @NorthernHawkeye to weigh in on how Iowa DCI still got it right in investigating Iowa player betting.

This’ll be an interesting read. I wonder whether it may have any implications around commercial uses of location data. And those license plate cameras.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

This’ll be an interesting read. I wonder whether it may have any implications around commercial uses of location data. And those license plate cameras.

Yep. Shocking opinion from this Court.

But I will never understand this Court’s preference for concentrating power in the executive rather than the legislative branch. Humphreys being overruled is a total “shocked but not really shocked” opinion.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I wonder whether it may have any implications around commercial uses of location data.

“Please accept our updated terms and conditions“ where we find yet another new way to take advantage of your data in a way most users don’t realize.

 

[Aardvark86]

Yep. Shocking opinion from this Court.

But I will never understand this Court’s preference for concentrating power in the executive rather than the legislative branch. Humphreys being overruled is a total “shocked but not really shocked” opinion.

Yeah, I am a little surprised with the slaughter broader implications too. I’ve previously said that the Roberts court will expand legislative dominance. On balance I continue to believe that. But I probably need to think about amending that view a little — maybe the real takeaway is simply that the court is pushing/insisting on a reorientation of government to political accountability (one branch or another, unless you’re the fed).

I’ll have to go back and look at my merits cases scorecard - slaughter is a big win for Trump, and cook might not be a bad loss, but on balance in the big cases the court is in fact drawing some limits when you get to the ultimate merits decision. I don’t think he wins birthright.

 

[Scrubby]

Democrat sweep is going to skyrocket on prediction markets with this scotus ruling on mail in ballots.

GOP cannot compete and has never competed with Democrats ability to find ballots after election day.

This is going to put a ton more pressure on Thune to find a way to try and pass the save act. If he doesn't do it then his political career is almost assuredly over after this term is served.

 

[Scrubby]

Good morning. Heavy rains in glacier mean a delay to today’s hike. So I get to see opinions coming out in the next few minutes.

first up Watson/ Election Day case. Votes received after but postmarked before can be counted. 5-4 from Barrett, with cjr, Soto, Jackson, kagan. Ought to be a good read. Likely correct. But note the court granted cert in a pa case about requiring a date on mail ballots.

now chatrie! From kagan. 6-3. Geofence warrant was a fourth search requiring probable cause. Huge case. Expectations of privacy in cell phone location data. Remand for pc assessment.

Now slaughter and cook, from the chief. Slaughter is fired, cook is not. Humphreys is overruled in the process though. Slaughter appears to be the more important one as it seems to be the demise of independent agencies and cook may have been more due process related.

Federal reserve seen as a more autonomous/separate agency compared to FTC in the eyes of the law?

 

[Aardvark86]

Federal reserve seen as a more autonomous/separate agency compared to FTC in the eyes of the law?

Basically, but other than a longer history of bank independence, I’m a bit mystified why the broad executive control theory espoused in slaughter doesn’t apply.
Ftr, I don’t completely buy the whole executive control issue generally, as I think many agency actions are primarily legislative in nature.

 

[Aardvark86]

Democrat sweep is going to skyrocket on prediction markets with this scotus ruling on mail in ballots.

GOP cannot compete and has never competed with Democrats ability to find ballots after election day.

This is going to put a ton more pressure on Thune to find a way to try and pass the save act. If he doesn't do it then his political career is almost assuredly over after this term is served.

Correction to my earlier post on orders. They granted cert on whether az can enforce proof of citizenship at voter registration. And they called for sg’s views regarding cert in a pa case involving a requirement that mail ballots have hand dating on them before e-day.

 

[Finance85]

Basically, but other than a longer history of bank independence, I’m a bit mystified why the broad executive control theory espoused in slaughter doesn’t apply.
Ftr, I don’t completely buy the whole executive control issue generally, as I think many agency actions are primarily legislative in nature.

Many agencies have evolved into legislative, primarily post WW II. This SCOTUS is rolling that notion back since Chevron is disappearing.

 

[Finance85]

Geofence opinion here.

I’m waiting for @NorthernHawkeye to weigh in on how Iowa DCI still got it right in investigating Iowa player betting.

I read it and like it. It reaffirms Carpenter, and more recently Jones. I expect Flock Cameras will be challenged heavily in state and federal courts very quickly. Yeah, the cameras will still be legal, but not capturing all the data .

Colorado will probably have to say goodbye to their AI calculated speeding tickets.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Geofence opinion here.

I’m waiting for @NorthernHawkeye to weigh in on how Iowa DCI still got it right in investigating Iowa player betting.

Link to me asserting the DCI "got it right".

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Link to me asserting the DCI "got it right".

I don’t answer questions from posters that refuse to answer questions.

But we all know.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

I don’t answer questions from posters that refuse to answer questions.

But we all know.

That wasn't a question.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

That wasn't a question.

“Link to me asserting the DCI “got it right”” isn’t a question? LOL

Of course it is - you are asking for a link to where you were on Team DCI and against the Iowa athletes - as you posted on HROT.

Hope this helps you understand the definition of the word “question.”

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

“Link to me asserting the DCI “got it right”” isn’t a question? LOL

Of course it is - you are asking for a link to where you were on Team DCI and against the Iowa athletes - as you posted on HROT.

Hope this helps you understand the definition of the word “question.”

I was never on any team. The case needed to run its course.

 

[lucas80]

Yeah, I am a little surprised with the slaughter broader implications too. I’ve previously said that the Roberts court will expand legislative dominance. On balance I continue to believe that. But I probably need to think about amending that view a little — maybe the real takeaway is simply that the court is pushing/insisting on a reorientation of government to political accountability (one branch or another, unless you’re the fed).

I’ll have to go back and look at my merits cases scorecard - slaughter is a big win for Trump, and cook might not be a bad loss, but on balance in the big cases the court is in fact drawing some limits when you get to the ultimate merits decision. I don’t think he wins birthright.

Yep. Shocking opinion from this Court.

But I will never understand this Court’s preference for concentrating power in the executive rather than the legislative branch. Humphreys being overruled is a total “shocked but not really shocked” opinion.

Give it 3 years. They will be robustly pulling back the reins on President Beshear/Ossoff/Pritzker/Newsom...
As I put in another thread. This will work poorly, just as it did in Germany in the 1930s. You cannot create an all powerful executive, with complete power. That's what this merry band of Federalists is doing. But, but, impeachment they will say...

 

[Finance85]

“Please accept our updated terms and conditions“ where we find yet another new way to take advantage of your data in a way most users don’t realize.

Based on the opinion, which addressed that, there's way less wiggle room for that. In other words, the court says that approach isn't valid.

 

[Finance85]

Basically, but other than a longer history of bank independence, I’m a bit mystified why the broad executive control theory espoused in slaughter doesn’t apply.
Ftr, I don’t completely buy the whole executive control issue generally, as I think many agency actions are primarily legislative in nature.

The Court focused on the injunction without actually ruling on the merits. All of the discussion re: the merits was centered around whether the injunction should be granted, and the corresponding likelihood Cook would prevail at trial.

 

[Aardvark86]

Many agencies have evolved into legislative, primarily post WW II. This SCOTUS is rolling that notion back since Chevron is disappearing.

Really like the Gorsuch concurrence in slaughter.

 

[dgordo]

 

[dgordo]

 

[fskillet]

the campaign finance ruling is wild, imo. ENDLESS DARK MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

the campaign finance ruling is wild, imo. ENDLESS DARK MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS

Yep. Citizens United was only the beginning. It’s such an awful undemocratic principle IMO.

 

[JayDeeSC]

Trump just got a HUGE spanking on the birthright citizenship ruling.

 

[Rifler]

Trump just got a HUGE spanking on the birthright citizenship ruling.

largely anticipated ruling and necessary first step...

 

[JayDeeSC]

largely anticipated ruling and necessary first step...

I will grant you that this HUGE spanking was largely anticipated. No one thought his argument had any merit.

 

[fatpiggy]

No big surprise in the birthright case, imo. Fair ruling.


Think this will be more interesting.

Shall not be infringed? Or Must be in a militia?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Can anyone summarize the dissent on the 14th? I get the "common sense" argument for wanting to do an amendment, etc. That is not what I'm asking. I am asking what the dissent was on this actual case.

 

[Rifler]

I will grant you that this HUGE spanking was largely anticipated. No one thought his argument had any merit.

Given the 6-3 ruling apparently some thought there were elements of merit...

 

[fatpiggy]

Can anyone summarize the dissent on the 14th? I get the "common sense" argument for wanting to do an amendment, etc. That is not what I'm asking. I am asking what the dissent was on this actual case.

Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch) dissented in Trump v. Barbara (2026), a 6-3 decision upholding broad birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and striking down President Trump's Executive Order 14160.

theguardian.com
Thomas wrote a lengthy (roughly 90-page) dissent arguing that the majority (and the Executive Order's challengers) misinterpreted the original public meaning of the Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

en.wikipedia.org
Key Points of Thomas's Dissent

• Historical context and purpose of the Clause: The 14th Amendment (and the related Civil Rights Act of 1866) primarily aimed to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Black Americans. These individuals had "no other homeland," owed no allegiance to foreign powers, and were fully subject to U.S. authority. Thomas argued this did not extend automatically to children of foreign temporary visitors or those unlawfully present, who retained primary allegiance to their parents' home country.
  
  theguardian.com
• "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires full/political allegiance tied to domicile: Thomas contended that "jurisdiction" in the Clause (and similar language in the 1866 Act) meant more than mere subjection to U.S. laws while physically present. It required a reciprocal, permanent bond of allegiance—typically evidenced by domicile (permanent residence with intent to remain). Temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants lack this; their children follow the parents' domicile and primary allegiance. He drew on 19th-century understandings of citizenship, common law as adapted in America (rejecting feudal jus soli), international law, and congressional debates.
  
  supremecourt.gov
• Rejection of broad common-law jus soli: Thomas argued the majority overstated the applicability of English common-law birthright citizenship (which he viewed as feudal and tied to the sovereign's soil). Post-independence American law emphasized domicile and allegiance over mere birthplace, avoiding dual citizenship and conflicting allegiances. Exceptions for diplomats' children illustrated the principle. He criticized reliance on cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as involving dicta and parents with domicile/permanent residence.
  
  supremecourt.gov
• Practical and policy implications: Unlimited birthright citizenship for children of non-domiciliaries creates incentives for illegal entry or "birth tourism," imposes costs on the U.S., and deviates from the practices of most nations. Thomas noted Congress could address citizenship for such cases via legislation but the Constitution does not mandate it.
  
  nbcnews.com

Thomas viewed many applications of the Executive Order as consistent with the Clause's original meaning and would have upheld it (or at least allowed narrower implementation). He criticized the majority for an overly broad, ahistorical reading that constitutionalized a near-universal rule not compelled by the text or history.

en.wikipedia.org
In short, Thomas's dissent prioritizes originalism focused on allegiance/domicile (rooted in the Reconstruction-era goal of securing citizenship for freed Black Americans) over a territorial "soil"-based rule. This aligns with his broader judicial philosophy emphasizing history and original public meaning. The other dissents (Alito and Gorsuch separately) raised related concerns but were shorter. The ruling preserves the long-standing broad interpretation of birthright citizenship.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Can anyone summarize the dissent on the 14th? I get the "common sense" argument for wanting to do an amendment, etc. That is not what I'm asking. I am asking what the dissent was on this actual case.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and probably Kavanaugh think everyone is wrong and that they are destined to correct this "serious mistake".