The Supreme Court decided two cases today, and though neither of them presents the sort of widely consequential matter that, say, the President's student loan forgiveness plan that was argued this morning does, each has interesting aspects. Both are decided on the now-vogueish doctrine of textualism, though each shows divisions among the Justices that prove again that not only can Justices who have differing jurisprudential philosophies agree with one another as to statutory meaning, but that Justices with the same jurisprudential philosophy can disagree with one another on text as well. Thus, while there are cases, like Dobbs, where one might accurately predict the outcome on the basis of philosophy or alignment with the preferences of the President who nominated various Justices, there is a host of cases where labels don't hold up at all.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- “They Said What?! I’ll Sue!” – Litigating Defamatory Claims – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- Two Plaintiffs Win Border Battles as Court Emphasizes When It Has Jurisdiction in Cases with Substantial Factual Issues - SCOTUS Today
- Public Officials Subject to Suits for Blocking Social Media Critics, “Safety Valve” Relief from Mandatory Minimums Is Limited - SCOTUS Today
- Main Justice Launches a 90-Day “Policy Sprint” to Launch a Whistleblower Rewards Program
- What to Do When Your Case Gets Referred to Mediation