SCOTUS Catch-all |

[nycfan]

I'd like to say that this is a measure of the Supreme Court maybe pulling back a little bit on the outcome-oriented reasoning, but it's a really technical decision that hews very closely to the specific language of the statute in question.

It's not surprising that an easy case was decided the right way. As much as the Court is sensitive to the oppression of gun buyers in this country, who have had to put up with suggestions about onerous regulations for a generation, I don't think they give a fuck about ghost guns. And the personal feelings of the justices are a key to predicting these outcomes.

Why did they take a different view of bump stocks and ghost guns? Probably because bump stocks are fun. You can go to a firing range and have some fun shooting big guns fast. And even if you don't use bump stocks per se, they don't want to do anything that might validate a crackdown on ARs, because ARs are fun. By contrast, I can't imagine the Justices see themselves, or anyone they know, buying and/or getting off on ghost guns.

From coverage of the day of oral arguments, I got the impression the government did a good job convincing the justices that these are less about hobbyists and more about criminals looking for a new edge over law enforcement …

 

[superrific]

From coverage of the day of oral arguments, I got the impression the government did a good job convincing the justices that these are less about hobbyists and more about criminals looking for a new edge over law enforcement …

They didn't even have to do that. This was a facial challenge. Now I don't buy that judges actually apply the standard of "a facial challenge must fail if there is even one valid application" (i.e. the black-letter standard) because that would be impossible, but in a facial challenge, the challenger does really have to show that the regulation isn't just "more X than Y" but "X in exclusion of Y."

The plaintiffs had to show that this regulation was more or less *only* about hobbyists and given the obvious criminal implications, that was never going to work.

It shouldn't be news when an easy case is decided correctly. Sigh. In a better world, this case wouldn't have even gotten to the Supreme Court because all the circuits would have better sense than this,. Sigh.

 

[nycfan]

They didn't even have to do that. This was a facial challenge. Now I don't buy that judges actually apply the standard of "a facial challenge must fail if there is even one valid application" (i.e. the black-letter standard) because that would be impossible, but in a facial challenge, the challenger does really have to show that the regulation isn't just "more X than Y" but "X in exclusion of Y."

The plaintiffs had to show that this regulation was more or less *only* about hobbyists and given the obvious criminal implications, that was never going to work.

It shouldn't be news when an easy case is decided correctly. Sigh. In a better world, this case wouldn't have even gotten to the Supreme Court because all the circuits would have better sense than this,. Sigh.

Just noted in reference to your comment about justices deciding based more on how they feel about the issue.

 

[superrific]

Just noted in reference to your comment about justices deciding based more on how they feel about the issue.

Fair. I guess when I say "it depends on how they feel," I was referring to something different. All judges have their legal decisions influenced by what they are convinced the case is about. I mean something more profound, which is that this Supreme Court relies so extensively on their prior feelings.

That's what you see when comparing to the bump stock case. Bump stocks are every bit as much about evading law enforcement as ghost guns. And the SG's office didn't botch the bump stock case. IIRC the most talented SG since I've been following law argued that case herself and she did a good job. But she couldn't overcome the sympathy that the justices have for people who like to go to gun ranges and shoot powerful guns. I'd be shocked if Thomas, Gorsuch and Kav have never done this multiple times. None of them have bought ghost guns.

So your point is correct but also on a bit of a different plane than my analysis. You're basically assuming that the court is acting like a court, and applying usual argumentative analysis. I'm questioning whether assuming that it's actually a court (with all that implies in our country) is warranted. The first bar that the Supreme Court must clear but often has trouble doing is, "are you a jurist or an activist in robes."

 

[Bobfripp]

“… Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that opinion, dissented Wednesday, saying the court was inconsistent by “rewriting” statutory text to cover ghost guns when last year it wouldn’t do so to permit regulation of bump stocks. He argued that incomplete frames or receivers—such as those that require holes to be drilled to finish the weapon’s assembly—weren’t covered by the language of the law.

“The ordinary meaning of ‘frame or receiver’ does not include objects that may be ‘converted’ into a frame or receiver,” Thomas wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented separately. …”

Thomas and Alito dissent. I am shocked.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’​

Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits​

GIFT LINK —> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...45?st=ZbEvzy&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”

There's some good news. Also interesting that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and it was a 7-2. Maybe we'll see potential and start to swing on gun regulations.

 

[superrific]

There's some good news. Also interesting that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and it was a 7-2. Maybe we'll see potential and start to swing on gun regulations.

Very doubtful for reasons described above. It's not that interesting that Gorsuch wrote the opinion. He probably volunteered (loving as he does obscure grammatical concepts like "artifact nouns" which feature prominently in his opinion) and everyone else was happy to let him do it.

The opinion breaks as little ground as possible. It is not an opening.

 

[nycfan]

Gift link to a good primer to this term so far and the most notable (non-shadow docket/Trump emergency cases) outstanding:

—> https://wapo.st/4jgaSWN

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Gift link to a good primer to this term so far and the most notable (non-shadow docket/Trump emergency cases) outstanding:

—> https://wapo.st/4jgaSWN

I've been pretty happy so far. Much better than last term.The conservative block is actually only Alito and Thomas with the other conservatives seemingly willing to endorse some liberal/moderate positions.

The last big one for me is the direct funding of religious charter School cases in Oklahoma. Really hope we don't let politicians give our tax dollars to religious organizations. Because you know North Carolina would be handing it out too just about anybody that could spell Jesus correctly on the application.

 

[superrific]

I've been pretty happy so far. Much better than last term.The conservative block is actually only Alito and Thomas with the other conservatives seemingly willing to endorse some liberal/moderate positions.

1. They always save their real doozies until the end of the term;
2. It has been a quiet term; not that many significant cases; but they will stuck fuck a few things up.
3. The 100% reactionary bloc is Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is 90% reactionary and Kav 55-60%. Don't kid yourself about this court. All 6 conservatives voted to give Trump immunity.
4. The "liberal/moderate" positions you refer to are nothing of the sort. They are just not BSC. I can't think of any case where a conservative voted in a way that wouldn't have been unanimous (a 9-0 or 8-1) a decade ago. Insisting on due process before horrible and adverse consequences is not liberal or moderate; it's the fundamental principle to which most of the important amendments address. The ghost gun case was only a case because of their stupidity in Bruen; a decade ago, everyone would have admitted that the ghost gun bullshit was just that. And they also fucked up the bump stock case, so they don't even have a passing grade there.

Most of the cases that garner "liberal" votes from conservatives have been cleanups of problems the conservatives made themselves through stupidly overreaching and unsupportable positions.

 

[nycfan]

Supreme Court seems likely to let religious families opt out of LGBTQ storybooks​

The lawsuit over public school story time with titles like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Love, Violet” is one of three major religious-rights cases on the high court’s docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/?location=alert

“… At issue for the justices is whether public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, illegally burden the First Amendment rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when children are required to participate in discussions that touch on gender and sexuality that conflict with their faith. The case, which has implications for public schools nationwide, involves the type of diversity and inclusion efforts the Trump administration has targeted on college campuses and in K-12 districts, as well as in government and private businesses.

… During more than two and a half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage.

Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up and still lives.

… Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary school books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

Only two of the court’s liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to embrace the school system’s claim that allowing opt-outs would be unworkable for school officials and potentially lead to troubling outcomes.

… The parents behind the lawsuit say they are not trying to change the lesson plans or remove any books from classroom shelves. They just want to have the option of saying their children will not participate. …”

——
Unsurprising. I have sympathy for parent wanting say in what their kids learn in school.

The reality is that having kids opt out of a lesson means having to have alternative oversight for those kids while the lesson is taught. In schools stretched thin, that is a bigger hassle than the justices blithely suggest, so the likely outcome I that such lessons will be limited or avoided for largely logistical reasons. And s Kagan noted, depending on how broadly the opinion is written, we could end up with parents demanding opt out rights for everything, effectively requiring cafeteria plan lessons.

But the direction here I obviously and the issue will be how tightly they circumscribe the opt-out rights as a First Amendment matter.

 

[superrific]

Supreme Court seems likely to let religious families opt out of LGBTQ storybooks​

The lawsuit over public school story time with titles like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Love, Violet” is one of three major religious-rights cases on the high court’s docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/?location=alert

“… At issue for the justices is whether public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, illegally burden the First Amendment rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when children are required to participate in discussions that touch on gender and sexuality that conflict with their faith. The case, which has implications for public schools nationwide, involves the type of diversity and inclusion efforts the Trump administration has targeted on college campuses and in K-12 districts, as well as in government and private businesses.

… During more than two and a half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage.

Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up and still lives.

… Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary school books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

Only two of the court’s liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to embrace the school system’s claim that allowing opt-outs would be unworkable for school officials and potentially lead to troubling outcomes.

… The parents behind the lawsuit say they are not trying to change the lesson plans or remove any books from classroom shelves. They just want to have the option of saying their children will not participate. …”

——
Unsurprising. I have sympathy for parent wanting say in what their kids learn in school.

Not this type of say. How many of those parents want the Ten Commandments plastered on the walls of schools? Can't opt-out of that.

A proper secular education is always going to conflict with a religious education. The state should be able to provide a secular education to everyone. That's the goal. Parents can supplement with their own lessons on religion should they choose. And so can their church. And they can send their kids to Christian schools if it's so important to them.

But we can't have kids being pulled out of school for important lessons like tolerance and morality.

In general, the idea that parents should control the education of their children is borderline insane. It makes no sense at all. Schools should work like corporations: the parents/stockholders can elect the board, and after the board is elected, the board manages everything.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Supreme Court seems likely to let religious families opt out of LGBTQ storybooks​

The lawsuit over public school story time with titles like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Love, Violet” is one of three major religious-rights cases on the high court’s docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/?location=alert

“… At issue for the justices is whether public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, illegally burden the First Amendment rights of parents to freely exercise their religion when children are required to participate in discussions that touch on gender and sexuality that conflict with their faith. The case, which has implications for public schools nationwide, involves the type of diversity and inclusion efforts the Trump administration has targeted on college campuses and in K-12 districts, as well as in government and private businesses.

… During more than two and a half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage.

Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up and still lives.

… Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary school books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

Only two of the court’s liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — seemed to embrace the school system’s claim that allowing opt-outs would be unworkable for school officials and potentially lead to troubling outcomes.

… The parents behind the lawsuit say they are not trying to change the lesson plans or remove any books from classroom shelves. They just want to have the option of saying their children will not participate. …”

——
Unsurprising. I have sympathy for parent wanting say in what their kids learn in school.

The reality is that having kids opt out of a lesson means having to have alternative oversight for those kids while the lesson is taught. In schools stretched thin, that is a bigger hassle than the justices blithely suggest, so the likely outcome I that such lessons will be limited or avoided for largely logistical reasons. And s Kagan noted, depending on how broadly the opinion is written, we could end up with parents demanding opt out rights for everything, effectively requiring cafeteria plan lessons.

But the direction here I obviously and the issue will be how tightly they circumscribe the opt-out rights as a First Amendment matter.

That’s the weird thing about this case to me: the First Amendment (specifically as it relates to religious freedom) angle. The topics are secular. And on a related note, what if a work of literature focuses on a Christian family and goes into detail about their religious practices and beliefs? Or what if a work of literature uses symbolism derived from Christian beliefs/stories, as much literature does? Can non-Christian parents opt their kids out?

 

[superrific]

Or what if a work of literature uses symbolism derived from Christian beliefs/stories, as much literature does? Can non-Christian parents opt their kids out?

This is the question that the religious liberty types cannot answer, or at least not in any satisfying way.

They simultaneously want a) the courts to take religious liberty plaintiffs at their word -- i.e. give them a strong presumption of sincerity that is probably impossible to defeat without the plaintiff fucking up; and b) give religious liberty plaintiffs the ability to avoid generally applicable laws unless the state can satisfy strict scrutiny.

The obvious result is a slow-motion degradation of our systems of law. The religious-exemption industry is just getting going, but I see no reason why it wouldn't spread as soon as its advantages become clear -- which might happen if there's a big celebrity case involving such a thing.

It's never been really clear to me what's wrong with the standard laid out in Employment Division v Smith -- i.e. incidental burdens on free exercise that emerge from generally applicable laws (with no discriminatory intent) are not of constitutional significance. The facts of Smith always give liberals pause: the petitioners were Native Americans arrested and convicted for possession of peyote, which they said was used for a religious ritual required by the religion. It combined a War On Drugs mentality with arguable discrimination against Native Americans, and liberals really don't want to rule for the state.

There can be narrowing formulations: maybe the generally applicable laws standard only applies to activities with high propensity for abuse. We basically wouldn't have any drug laws if anyone arrested can say they smoke the ganja 'cause religion. Arguably a narrow exception for peyote doesn't raise this problem, as peyote isn't terribly popular and members of tribes are historically known to use peyote in religion. But that's a far cry from what this court is doing, which is basically to give Christians the option as to whether they want to obey anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws.

 

[nycfan]

Intriguing voting bloc in dissent in this case …

 

[nycfan]

In case anyone has time to listen to the oral arguments today in the Oklahoma public funds for religious charter school case:

Live Oral Argument Audio

 

[Calheel]

This is the question that the religious liberty types cannot answer, or at least not in any satisfying way.

They simultaneously want a) the courts to take religious liberty plaintiffs at their word -- i.e. give them a strong presumption of sincerity that is probably impossible to defeat without the plaintiff fucking up; and b) give religious liberty plaintiffs the ability to avoid generally applicable laws unless the state can satisfy strict scrutiny.

The obvious result is a slow-motion degradation of our systems of law. The religious-exemption industry is just getting going, but I see no reason why it wouldn't spread as soon as its advantages become clear -- which might happen if there's a big celebrity case involving such a thing.

It's never been really clear to me what's wrong with the standard laid out in Employment Division v Smith -- i.e. incidental burdens on free exercise that emerge from generally applicable laws (with no discriminatory intent) are not of constitutional significance. The facts of Smith always give liberals pause: the petitioners were Native Americans arrested and convicted for possession of peyote, which they said was used for a religious ritual required by the religion. It combined a War On Drugs mentality with arguable discrimination against Native Americans, and liberals really don't want to rule for the state.

There can be narrowing formulations: maybe the generally applicable laws standard only applies to activities with high propensity for abuse. We basically wouldn't have any drug laws if anyone arrested can say they smoke the ganja 'cause religion. Arguably a narrow exception for peyote doesn't raise this problem, as peyote isn't terribly popular and members of tribes are historically known to use peyote in religion. But that's a far cry from what this court is doing, which is basically to give Christians the option as to whether they want to obey anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws.

A lot of these cases arise in the context of LGTBQ anti-discrimination laws. That is not surprising because: (1) there is less public support for those laws than, say, race anti-discrimination, and (2) there is more of a historical connection between religion and anti-LGBTQ conduct.

That said, the logic of these cases should apply equally to race. So what is going to happen when a company claims a sincerely-held religious belief not to serve black people?

 

[mpaer]

A lot of these cases arise in the context of LGTBQ anti-discrimination laws. That is not surprising because: (1) there is less public support for those laws than, say, race anti-discrimination, and (2) there is more of a historical connection between religion and anti-LGBTQ conduct.

That said, the logic of these cases should apply equally to race. So what is going to happen when a company claims a sincerely-held religious belief not to serve black people?

Unmarried women who get pregnant-"religous" taboo

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Not this type of say. How many of those parents want the Ten Commandments plastered on the walls of schools? Can't opt-out of that.

A proper secular education is always going to conflict with a religious education. The state should be able to provide a secular education to everyone. That's the goal. Parents can supplement with their own lessons on religion should they choose. And so can their church. And they can send their kids to Christian schools if it's so important to them.

But we can't have kids being pulled out of school for important lessons like tolerance and morality.

In general, the idea that parents should control the education of their children is borderline insane. It makes no sense at all. Schools should work like corporations: the parents/stockholders can elect the board, and after the board is elected, the board manages everything.

If simply hearing about same sex marriage - something real and observable that exists in the US as a right - is an unacceptable affront, why shouldn’t they be permitted to opt out of science and history lessons that offer far greater challenges to their beliefs and are less concrete in their interpretation than the readily observable fact of same sex marriage?
This is a slope slippery with horseshit.

 

[superrific]

Intriguing voting bloc in dissent in this case …

The Supreme Court often breaks its party lines on these technical, narrow issues. It's sort of sad that they can exercise independent judgment when it comes to Medicare reimbursements but when it comes to criminal immunity for the president, it's lockstep.