Jun 28, 2023·edited Jun 29, 2023Liked by James J. Heaney
This is such an obviously good idea I'm slightly jealous I didn't think of it first... And so well done I don't have to do it. I can just point people here. Kudos
Myself, when I was starting to read Supreme Court opinions, I found it helpful to read old opinions from before the modern era as well - both so I could read cases where I was starting from more objective distance, and because justices from the pre-computer era usually write much shorter. But then, I would've been reading those cases for their historical value anyway; someone who isn't doing that might not find it worth it.
In addition to what you recommend reading, I've found it's usually good to at least dip into the central part of the Opinion of the Court - because even if it's not well argued as an argument, it's still the controlling opinion. So, it's going to be the starting point for the law in this area at least until the next Supreme Court opinion. For example, if you wanted to make sense of gun law from 2010-2022, reading "McDonald v. Chicago" would've been very helpful; now, you'll want to read "NY Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen" for the same reason.
(Also, I couldn't comment on your last linkspost, but thank you very much for your link to my blog and your praise!)
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jun 30, 2023Liked by James J. Heaney
On a similar note, I have found that starting with old opinions is a very good way for a legalese laymen to learn to read and decipher the court reporter...
Also, might I suggest that if someone is familiar enough with a specific case to not need to read the syllabus, but are still new to SCOTUS case briefs that you may want to substitute first reading the syllabus with first reading the Question Presented. This, in my opinion, is also a great (initial) substitute for the long (and, as James pointed out, incredibly boring) procedural history....
I mention this because the QP is easy to find, but only if you know where to look. Which is the Court's granted cert petition.
I felt in part vindicated and in part disappointed by the decision. Going in my hope was an opinion along the lines of "obviously state constitutions and probably explicit statues can constrain the legislature of a state in exercising its powers under the elections clause, and of course the state supreme court is the arbiter of whether they have complied with these provisions. However the state's supreme court cannot usurp the legislature's power under the federal constitution by exercising review based on constitutional or statutory provisions that do not related specifically and/or explicitly to the elections clause power."
From there it would be easy enough to say that something like Article 11 of the Ohio Constitution is constitutional under the US Constitution and can be enforced by the Ohio Supreme Court. But the North Carolina Supreme Court cannot "interpret" the due process clause of the NC constitution and overrule the legislature's drawing of congressional districts. The first is an explicit and clear constraint/rule on the exercise of the elections clause power, the second is more or less pretense.
My mixed feelings here are due to 1) Kavanaugh at least but I think everyone else clearly recognizing this is the issue and the problem but 2) no one really wanting to state the problem clearly or make any rule about it. As such Thomas' prediction can be taken to the bank. Every state Supreme Court in the United States now has the chance to draw their own congressional districts, call it due process, then see if the Federal Courts blink.
I was going to say "perhaps we'll see that in a case where the issue is properly presented," but then I remembered that this is Moore v. Harper, where it's not obvious that *any* issue was properly presented, but they ruled anyway. Makes it feel extra-stinky when they decline to rule on other parts of the case by pleading lack of presentation!
Still, like you said, these cases won't stop coming just 'cause Johnny Roberts would prefer they do.
This is such an obviously good idea I'm slightly jealous I didn't think of it first... And so well done I don't have to do it. I can just point people here. Kudos
An interesting way of looking at things; thanks!
Myself, when I was starting to read Supreme Court opinions, I found it helpful to read old opinions from before the modern era as well - both so I could read cases where I was starting from more objective distance, and because justices from the pre-computer era usually write much shorter. But then, I would've been reading those cases for their historical value anyway; someone who isn't doing that might not find it worth it.
In addition to what you recommend reading, I've found it's usually good to at least dip into the central part of the Opinion of the Court - because even if it's not well argued as an argument, it's still the controlling opinion. So, it's going to be the starting point for the law in this area at least until the next Supreme Court opinion. For example, if you wanted to make sense of gun law from 2010-2022, reading "McDonald v. Chicago" would've been very helpful; now, you'll want to read "NY Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen" for the same reason.
(Also, I couldn't comment on your last linkspost, but thank you very much for your link to my blog and your praise!)
Thank YOU for letting me get away with calling you Evan Triangle with a straight face!
Old opinions are delightful, but you almost need a whole different orientation for them (maybe several, one for each era), which is a sort of awkward segue into an interesting paper I started reading today: https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/5976/galley/22809/view/
On a similar note, I have found that starting with old opinions is a very good way for a legalese laymen to learn to read and decipher the court reporter...
Also, might I suggest that if someone is familiar enough with a specific case to not need to read the syllabus, but are still new to SCOTUS case briefs that you may want to substitute first reading the syllabus with first reading the Question Presented. This, in my opinion, is also a great (initial) substitute for the long (and, as James pointed out, incredibly boring) procedural history....
I mention this because the QP is easy to find, but only if you know where to look. Which is the Court's granted cert petition.
I felt in part vindicated and in part disappointed by the decision. Going in my hope was an opinion along the lines of "obviously state constitutions and probably explicit statues can constrain the legislature of a state in exercising its powers under the elections clause, and of course the state supreme court is the arbiter of whether they have complied with these provisions. However the state's supreme court cannot usurp the legislature's power under the federal constitution by exercising review based on constitutional or statutory provisions that do not related specifically and/or explicitly to the elections clause power."
From there it would be easy enough to say that something like Article 11 of the Ohio Constitution is constitutional under the US Constitution and can be enforced by the Ohio Supreme Court. But the North Carolina Supreme Court cannot "interpret" the due process clause of the NC constitution and overrule the legislature's drawing of congressional districts. The first is an explicit and clear constraint/rule on the exercise of the elections clause power, the second is more or less pretense.
My mixed feelings here are due to 1) Kavanaugh at least but I think everyone else clearly recognizing this is the issue and the problem but 2) no one really wanting to state the problem clearly or make any rule about it. As such Thomas' prediction can be taken to the bank. Every state Supreme Court in the United States now has the chance to draw their own congressional districts, call it due process, then see if the Federal Courts blink.
That's an interesting way of splitting the baby!
I was going to say "perhaps we'll see that in a case where the issue is properly presented," but then I remembered that this is Moore v. Harper, where it's not obvious that *any* issue was properly presented, but they ruled anyway. Makes it feel extra-stinky when they decline to rule on other parts of the case by pleading lack of presentation!
Still, like you said, these cases won't stop coming just 'cause Johnny Roberts would prefer they do.