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
- Even Privilege Logs Can Be Privileged Under the Fifth Amendment
- “Claims” Under the FCA, §1983 Claim Denials on Failure-to-Exhaust Grounds, and Limits to FSIA’s Expropriation Exception - SCOTUS Today
- The 340B Reimbursement Battle: What Hospitals and Insurers Need to Know
- A Ticking Time Bomb—Universal Injunctive Relief at Risk - SCOTUS Today
- CFPB’s Recent Rule Eliminates Medical Debt from Credit Reports