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
- Third Circuit Holds that the Public Disclosure Bar Precludes Qui Tam Actions Based on Information Available on Publicly Accessible Databases
- Supreme Court of Ohio Rules on a Peer-Review Privilege Issue in Stull v. Summa
- Agency Actions Remain Judicially Unreviewable Where Congress Has Legislated Clear Agency Authority - SCOTUS Today
- The Loper and Jarksey Era: Agency Power to Award Civil Penalties in SEC and FINRA Under Increased Scrutiny
- Navigating Regulatory Challenges in the Dietary Supplement Industry: Insights on NJ Assembly Bill No. 1848