Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against Trump

[Botany]

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2021, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN newsource

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.

snip

At the center of the case was the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which has faced few judicial interpretations since it was written almost 250 years ago. The clause states that “no person holding any office … shall, without the consent of Congress” accept gifts or other benefits from foreign states.

“The Supreme Court’s procedural order not only wipes away two lower court rulings, but it also orders dismissal of the entire dispute — leaving for some other time resolution of the many questions Trump’s conduct raised about the Emoluments Clause,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“Ordinarily, the Court pursues such a step only when the prevailing party moots a case while the appeal is pending — as opposed to here, where the disputes became moot because Trump’s term ended,” he added. “Today’s orders suggest that the court is increasingly willing to invoke this doctrine to avoid highly charged political disputes, even if the mootness wasn’t caused by the parties that won below.”

Read more: https://kvia.com/your-voice-your-vote/politics/2021/01/25/supreme-court-dismisses-emolument-cases-against-trump/

---

So you can't charge him when he was in office and now that he is out of office you still can't charge him?
Joe needs to add more people to the court.

[sboatcar]

1. Does this have something to do with the relief sought by the lawsuit?

Was it to force the president to put his assets in a blind trust? Because if that was the relief sought, its ex post facto now, so that relief wouldn't do anything.

[onenote]

38. Yes. The complaint sought prospective relief.

It asked that Trump be ordered to stop violating the emoluments clause. But once he was out of office, that request became moot.

[Claustrum]

2. This gives more reasons for future presidents to delay in court as much as possible.

You try to hold them accountable but they delay the case to high court till after their terms. Boom, they aren't responsible anymore... What kind of BS is this?

[mjvpi]

41. If you have money, you win kind of BS.

Forget red meat issues like abortion etc. The Federalist Society picks all agree on money and power.

[Grimelle]

60. Running for POTUS

can now become a business.
Run to make money then leave
SCOTUS is gutless.

[modrepub]

3. It Won't Take 4 Years

to come up with a SCOTUS decision when this applies to a Democratic President. What a bunch of crap.

[IsItJustMe]

36. This is true. Like clock work. You can bet big big money on it.

[riversedge]

4. So, trumps strategy worked--break the law--Delay law suits till out office--and then

have them dismissed.

So--this will be ok for future Presidents also. damn. damn damn

[ToxMarz]

13. Though it seems unrealistic anymore, the correct solution is probably impeachment

rather than lawsuits. But that clearly is not likely to happen to any President unless there is a 2/3's opposition majority in the Senate. And if a party is popular enough to have a 2/3's majority in the Senate, they likely would hold the Presidency as well.

[Polybius]

26. No Party will ever hold 67 seats again

1935 we had more though. 72 seats with only 96 Senators, wow.

[reACTIONary]

52. That was my thought. What would the lawsuit ask as relief? nt

[LogicFirst]

5. Wait - You can't charge me with bank embezzlement because I did that

when I was president of the bank, and I am no longer with the bank. I got fired, so you can't come after me.

[dalton99a]

8. +1. Trump University School of Law

[rickmoen]

29. Spot On!

Spot On!

[kst]

33. Embezzlement analogy

Wait - You can't charge me with bank embezzlement because I did that when I was president of the bank, and I am no longer with the bank. I got fired, so you can't come after me.

It's more like an employee violating company policies and the company having no further recourse after firing the employee.

Violating the emoluments clause isn't a crime because Congress hasn't made it a crime.

They should.

Of course that wouldn't affect Trump, but it would constrain future Presidents.

[dsc]

42. what about the hotels from which he stole business

by requiring foreign governments and our government to get rooms at his.

[Mike 03]

6. Wow, this doesn't seem to make sense. You can't indict a sitting president, but

you can't charge him once he's out of office because "he's no longer in office."

Curious to hear what the legal experts think about this.



Kicking for visibility and more opinions.

[reACTIONary]

53. This was a lawsuit, not a criminal charge...

... as noted above, the relief that was being asked for was for him to "stop doing that". Since he is no longer resident, he is no longer "doing that". So the lawsuit is moot.

FYI, I am not a legal expert, just repeating what I read above.

[riversedge]

7. "The order was issued without comment or dissent." damn, we do not even get an

explaination!!

[Botany]

14. The Sandra Day O'Connor College of legal knowledge .... CYA

When the Supreme Court ruled on bush v Gore Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote that the court's
decision could not be used as precedence for any past or future decisions. Just like the court ruled
that in Florida 2000 you can't count the votes and now you have a packed court covering Trump's ass.

[ananda]

9. Seriously?

What does being out of office have to do with it?

That fucking court is SO compromised!

[FBaggins]

56. That's straightforward enough

If you go to court to get your neighbor to stop mowing his lawn at 2am and he moves away... your lawsuit is gone - because the court won't order him to stop doing something that he can no longer do (in this case, profit from being president).

[tavernier]

10. Cool! Hey Joe, start collecting gifts

of huge amounts of money. Flood the White House with bags and bags of cash from sheiks and rulers. Then let’s see how long it takes for scotus to reverse.

[Squinch]

11. Horrendous, stupid decision. Why not just tell all future Presidents to loot the government at will?

[bullimiami]

12. Shutter the court and go home. They abdicated their

responsibility to uphold the constitution.
Worse. They actively used their positions to aid and abet an unconstitutional theft.

This item could not be clearer.

Congress should act to recover every penny that trump got unconstitutionally.
If scotus objects tell them to get stuffed on separation of powers.

[beastie boy]

15. In practical terms, the SCOTUS decision has only one implication:

they set a term limit to emoluments lawsuits, which they determined to be the duration that a US President remains in office. They made no decision on the merits of the case or how the emoluments clause is to be interpreted or applied.

For many years, this has been Trump's favorite tactic as a defendant: run out the clock.

[ffr]

16. And crime pays when you're politically connected. Even a grifter like T----

gets off. But you and I and the rest of society, Fuck us! Spit on the sidewalk and it's swift justice!

[Frustratedlady]

17. The emoluments and tax return rules need to be specified more clearly.

Maybe they worked for other presidents, but Trump is a mob-president with mob-type understandings of how a law should be followed. Did he follow any of them?

He's violated so many laws/rulings that one cannot keep track.

[KPN]

18. That will happen just as soon as the next grifter

Democrat is elected as President, i.e., never unless Rs truly find God instead of Satan.

[lark]

19. Reich wing asses will do anything and everything to promote reich wing politicians.

UP to the point where they try to overthrow the government. Anything else is permisssblein promoting the rich, religious and right wing with this asshole SCOTUS. It would be so good if they could expand the court and dilute the corporate poison that they push.

[bucolic_frolic]

20. There's a Supreme Court Crisis in our Land

They won't hear cases against conservatives. In my mind they rarely enforce anything. It's like they've given up.

[Botany]

21. The Supreme Court and other fed. courts are the right's firewall against the change in ....

.... our nation's demographics and what society overall wants.

w put Roberts and Alito on the court after 2 dirty elections and Trump after being installed
by Russia put Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on the court and that isn't counting Clarence
Thomas who should have been washed out for his sexual behavior.

Joe should really look at putting more people on the court.

[Mr. Sparkle]

22. Its time to increase the size of the suprem court. Its too corrupt, full of GOP members!

[mjvpi]

51. 13 is my magic number.

12, one for each federal court of appeals plus a Chief Justice. 16 year term.

[RobinA]

23. The Court

traditionally does not hear moot cases.

[SunSeeker]

35. What was so pernicious is they vacated the lower court rulings finding emolument clause violations.

The case was not moot when those courts ruled. Why vacate them?

[mjvpi]

49. That's exactly my thought.

It must be the can of worms theory. If we enforce the legal red line concerning using elected power to increase personal wealth for the President, who knows where that theory of accountability will end. Congressmen, Senators, Judges..... And think of the type of person that would want to assume those positions of power. We’d be left with a bunch of altruists. The horror.

[SunSeeker]

50. According to Walter Shaub, other fed officials would have had to turn over the money.

Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.

" (Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

[onenote]

64. Federal officials would have to forfeit a foreign gift under 5 USC 7342. But that isn't this case.

But the plaintiffs in these cases did not cite or seek relief under that statute. They only sought a declaration that the emoluments clause was violated and a prospective injunction against doing so going forward.

Why wasn't 5 USC 7342 cited or relied on by the plaintiffs? I don't know, but presumably if they thought they could make out a case based on that statute, they would have. And the fact that not one Justice recorded a dissent to the dismissal indicates that there really wasn't any other option, give the relief being sought. Schaub is right about what can happen under 5 USC 7342. He's mistaken in assuming that these cases presented the Court with a claim under 5 usC 7342.

[SunSeeker]

68. Didn't plaintiffs claim money damages? Got a link to their Complaint? nt

[onenote]

69. Here you go.

https://www.sdnyblog.com/files/2017/06/17-Civ.-00458-2017.05.10-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

[SunSeeker]

70. Both complaints seek injunctive as well as declaratory relief. How is the dec relief moot?

Both sets of plaintiffs were seeking a declaration that what Trump did violated the emoluments clause. Trump still has the ill gotten money and still maintains he can keep it legally. Plaintiffs disagree. Thus there is still a present case and controversy. I can understand how the injunctive relief might be moot now, although I would argue that injunctive relief is only moot if Trump is impeached and barred from holding futire office, otherwise this conduct would happen again if he was re-elected, and thus injuctive relief is warranted. But regardless, how are the dec relief claims moot now?

[onenote]

75. The principles you rely on aren't ones I learned in law school.

And apparently aren't the ones that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer learned either.

The complaints sought a declaratory ruling that Trump was violating the emoluments clause and an injunction against his continuing to do so. They did not seek, nor cite any basis for seeking, a forfeiture of anything Trump had previously received. (There is a statute under which federal employees can be required to return foreign gifts, but it was not relied on, or even cited, in either complaint). Thus, the courts had no legal basis for granting that relief-- they don't scour the us code to find laws not relied on by parties.

Once Trump was out of office, the demand for him to stop violating the emoluments clause was moot -- there was no relief left for the courts to give. That made the request for a declaratory ruling essentially a request for an advisory opinion --something the courts are barred from issuing. Speculation about what Trump might do if he were to hold federal office again is simply that -- speculation. And it doesn't create an actionable case or controversy.

The Supreme Court dismissed four cases and vacated the underlying orders on mootness grounds today..Two were cases in which the issue related to the standing of parties to bring an emoluments complaint against trump. Two arose out of state government (TX and TN) orders limiting access to abortion during the pandemic. Those cases (one which had upheld the order and one which had enjoined it) were moot because the underlying orders had expired.

Folks who pin the decision in the emoluments case on a right wing court need to explain how that same court, on similar grounds, also declared two abortion cases -- including one that had upheld a restriction on abortion -- similarly moot.

[SunSeeker]

76. The Supreme Court had no problem with "speculative" relief just 2 months ago.

SCOTUS had no problem granting dec relief on a moot case just 2 months ago, where the challenged regulation had been rescinded! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor were in the dissent in that case, and I think they went along with the majority in this case because they didn't want to look like hypocrites.

[FBaggins]

58. Wasn't the lower court ruling stayed?

If so... that's why. It never took effect.

[onenote]

63. You are mistaken. The cases below had never reached the merits of the complaint

They addressed jurisdictional issues, such as whether the plaintiffs had standing and whether the issue was a "political question" outside the Court's jurisdiction.

We were a long long way from a ruling as to whether the clause had been violated.

[SunSeeker]

71. Then why did SCOTUS vacate those rulings? That is not normally done.

[onenote]

72. Because the cases were moot. They sought to enjoin Trump from violating the emoluments clause

going forward. And since he's no longer president he can't violate the clause going forward.

[SunSeeker]

86. The cases weren't moot when the lower court rulings were made.

That is why lower court rulings are usually not vacated when a case becomes moot. There was no reason to vacate them here. Indeed, there were important reasons to leave them on the books, as it was a matter of first impression, and established the elements for bringing an emoluments clause violation case against a sitting president. These cases sitting on the books could make the next emoluments case against a president go quicker.

[Nitram]

24. Catch-22

"So you can't charge him when he was in office and now that he is out of office you still can't charge him?"

[amb123]

25. Those Judas' Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will now get their 30 pieces of sliver from tRump.

"It pays to pack a court and betray the Constitution!"

[EndlessWire]

27. This sucks

Another hole in the Constitution that needs fixing.

So, don't try to tell We The People that no one is above the law. Clearly, anyone who is sheltered and protected by office and knows how to manipulate the clock IS above the law.

And, not just any law. This law is in the Constitution.

Well, let's concentrate on convicting him for Sedition. That little coup stunt he pulled where five people died is terribly important. And, the first question that will be asked is, do we have the Constitutional right to try him when he is out of office?

Well, we do, but those Supreme deciders better uphold the law, and not decide it is moot. Let's remind them that a remaining penalty that we can inflict on him is that We The People never want Orange man to darken our doorways again.

[Polybius]

28. What was the vote breakdown?

Did anyone oppose this?

[Traildogbob]

30. Someone remind me when we were great?

The courts and GOP seditionist that will walk freely kinda makes US see the corruption that is real, and do our own Storming. Trump, his spawn, GOP accomplices and the MAGA will be as fee as every 100 plus pardoned. The victims will see zero Justice.
God bless American, in God we trust and all that shit.

[CrispyQ]

31. Let's face it. From here on out,

the emoluments clause will only ever be applied when a dem is in the WH. Just like deficits and unity.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

34. This case is like Herpes

It will flare when the con's press the issue.


What a load of crap coming out of the court these days and the supposed non political members know exactly what they are doing.

No one is above the law, but I guess just Donny...just this time next time we will get them.

[rickyhall]

32. So, I guess a president can set up a kiosk or 2 in the lobby of the WH just like in CONgress?

[DENVERPOPS]

55. Not only the President

but all politicians, U.S. Senators, U.S. House Members, State Governors, etc etc etc.

The Supreme Court has just officially notified Foreign Nations, and Uber Rich that U.S. Politicians "are open for business"
and that it is perfectly legal......

I guess we are already back to the “Holy Shit” days of the RepubliCONs and Trump presidency and their actions…..

[DENVERPOPS]

57. Not only the President

but all politicians, U.S. Senators, U.S. House Members, State Governors, etc etc etc.

The Supreme Court has just officially notified Foreign Nations, and Uber Rich that U.S. Politicians "are open for business"
and that it is perfectly legal......

I guess we are already back to the “Holy Shit” days of the RepubliCONs and Trump presidency and their actions…..

[Harker]

37. Oh... okay. Never mind! n/t

[elleng]

39. The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

There were two cases covering the issue before the justices. One was initiated by lawyers for Maryland and Washington, DC, who argued Trump violated the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments through the Trump International Hotel in DC. They said they were disadvantaged in competing for business from foreign and state officials who may choose to do business with entities in which the President had a financial interest in order to curry favor.

A second case was brought by various members of the hospitality industry who own or work in hotels or restaurants in New York and Washington, who also argued they were put at a competitive disadvantage.

Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys challenging Trump in the disputes, said on Twitter following the court's decision that he wasn't surprised the case was dismissed as moot after Trump left office,

[SunSeeker]

45. But SCOTUS took the unusual step of wiping out the lower court rulings finding a violation. Why?

"The Supreme Court's procedural order not only wipes away two lower court rulings, but it also orders dismissal of the entire dispute -- leaving for some other time resolution of the many questions Trump's conduct raised about the Emoluments Clause," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"Ordinarily, the Court pursues such a step only when the prevailing party moots a case while the appeal is pending -- as opposed to here, where the disputes became moot because Trump's term ended," he added. "Today's orders suggest that the court is increasingly willing to invoke this doctrine to avoid highly charged political disputes, even if the mootness wasn't caused by the parties that won below."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

Also, the case is not moot. Trump still has the money and the plaintiffs have not been made whole for the damages they suffered. As Walter Shaub said:

Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.

" (Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

[onenote]

79. Neither of the lower court cases found a violation.

Those cases hadn't reached the point of addressing the merits. They addressed jurisdictional issues including whether the plaintiffs had standing and whether the issue was a 'political question" outside the court's jurisdiction.

[SunSeeker]

80. Even if they just established standing rules for alleging a violation, why vacate them?

Those lower courts established important precedent for the elements of being able to allege a violation of the emoluments clause. Why wipe that out? Usually vacating lower court rulings is not done, expecially when it was not the actions of the plaintiffs that rendered the case moot.

[onenote]

81. Because with the underlying controversy mooted, they were just advisory opinions

which aren't allowed.

The Court also granted Planned Parenthood’s request to vacate two Fifth Circuit decisions that allowed a Texas executive order banning abortions during the Covid-19 pandemic to go into effect. The grounds for vacating the lower court decisions: mootness arising from the fact that the Texas executive orders had expired.

[SunSeeker]

83. They weren't advisory opinions; the cases were indisputably not moot at the time of those rulings.

That's why lower court opinions are usually not vacated when a case becomes moot.

The fact that they did that in the two contemporaneous abortion cases does not make it right, nor grounds for vacating the lower court opinions in the emoluments cases, with their important, instructive rulings on a matter of first impression.

[onenote]

85. Munsingwear.

[SunSeeker]

40. I agree with Walter Schaub. This ruling is insane.

Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.

" (Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

[LittleGirl]

46. Damn it! Nt

[onenote]

67. Schaub is mistaken.

We'll start with the premise that Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, who did not dissent, wouldn't have stayed silent in the face of a decision that was truly "insane."

And the lawyers who brought this case indicated that they weren't surprised that it was declared moot after Trump left office.

So what do the Justices and the lawyers closest to the case know that Schaub apparently doesn't? Probably the fact that the example given by Schaub is based on 5 USC 7342, which addresses the receipt of gifts by federal employees. That statute, however, was not cited by or otherwise relied on by the plaintiffs in the emoluments cases dismissed by the SCOTUS. Those cases didn't bring a claim under 5 USC 7342 or seek relief under that section. Those cases sought a declaration that Trump was violating the emoluments clause and sought a prospective order forcing him to stop doing so. The Court, faced with such a complaint, really had no choice but to dismiss it as moot since it couldn't grant the prospective relief being sought.

[SunSeeker]

89. Schaub is not mistsken. It is an insane ruling.

It basically says if the president can delay emoluments trials until he’s out of office—and delay is exactly what Republican power lawyers excel at—then lawyers’ fees are just the price of doing business, and there’s no bar to using the office to make money.

These case were filed in 2017, then dragged through the appellate courts for two years before cert was granted, then SCOTUS sat on it for months, it wasn't moot then. SCOTUS fast-tracked every Trump lawsuit. It stinks.

RIP Emoluments Clause 1787 - 2021.

[C Moon]

43. Weird! What the hell are they thinking?!--or smoking!

[canuckledragger]

44. repubs stacking the courts with corrupt partisan judges seems to have helped.

Trump is a fucking prime example of violating the Emoluments Clause!

Mooching/stealing from the government through his various money laundering outfits he calls 'businesses' was one of the primary reasons he ran for office, and it fucking showed!

Did the courts ignore the whole forcing agents to rent rooms at extortionist prices in Mar-a-lago thing?

[FBaggins]

66. There weren't any reported dissents

No reason to believe that "stacking" had anything to do with this.

[AlexSFCA]

47. I wonder if it means the impeachment trial is also moot cause he is no longer in office

it’s moot anyway as trump won’t get convicted.

[C Moon]

48. So can the GOP's Supreme Court explain to us the purpose of the Constitution?...

It can't be upheld while in office (if the party is stacked in his/her favor), and now, apparently, it can't be upheld while he/she is out of office.

I guess the Constitution is there merely to keep the little people off the rich people's front lawns and private beaches.

[DonCoquixote]

54. in wrestling, they calll this the "heel turn"

where the good guy suddenly turns out to have been your arch enemy all along. These folk knwo they have 20 years to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, and pick up sweet paychecks now.

[Griefbird]

59. The case against the murderer is moot...

The victim is already dead.

[CaptainTruth]

61. If you want to blame someone, blame hundreds of years of Congress.

The emoluments clause of the Constitution defines what emoluments are & says they are prohibited, but it doesn't define a process for finding someone guilty, or what penalties they might receive if/when found guilty. It's up to Congress to pass legislation filling in those details & Congress has never done it.

So, we can complain all day about SCOTUS in a totally misguided waste of our effort, or we can contact our representatives & tell them we want emoluments legislation passed in the next 2 years.

[FBaggins]

65. Or just the most recent Congress

Keep in mind that an earlier case was thrown out because a bunch of Democrats on their own did not have standing. If they instead held a vote and a majority of the House voted to bring the case... it likely would have gone forward and been resolved by now.

[Jakes Progress]

62. So the SC says Joe should start sending republicans to Guantanamo?

I mean if he orders the military to round up all republican legislators, that would have been an abuse of his powers before now. But the Supreme Court just said he can do that and get away with it. He can't be charged while in office and he can't be charged with abusing powers when he is out of office.

We have some truly venal, dumb fucks in lifetime robes. They don't even pretend to give a damn about law or the constitution.

[badboy67]

74. The SCOTUS 6 are politicians in black robes, masquerading as "justices."

[badboy67]

73. "Supreme Collusion"

[onenote]

78. So Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer colluded with the Republicans?

And how do you explain the decision of the court to dismiss, also on mootness grounds, a pair of cases that involved challenges to pandemic-based restrictions on abortion access?

[SunSeeker]

82. No, they didn't collude. But they are not infallible.

Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer are actually moderates, it's just that the other 6 justices are such right wingers that they make them sound like liberal firebrands. They're not. Nor are they infallible.

And as I noted to you up the thread, SCOTUS had no problem granting dec relief on a moot case just 2 months ago, where the challenged regulation had been rescinded.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor were in the dissent in that case, and I think they went along with the majority in this case because they didn't want to look like hypocrites.

[onenote]

84. I think Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor went along with this decision because they felt it was correct

Just as they also felt it was correct to grant Planned Parenthood's request to vacate as moot the 5th Circuit decision upholding Abbott's executive order limiting abortion access.

Also noteworthy: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer did not argue in their dissent in the New York pandemic restriction case that it was "moot". And the Supreme Court today refused to grant relief similar to what it granted in that case in a Nevada case. In short, the New York case is pretty much limited to its facts.

[SunSeeker]

87. There may have been some horsetrading/lobbying going on between the justices.

SCOTUS case meetings are highly political affairs, with a lot of horsetrading and lobbying between the justices. A key reason Obama put Kagan on the court is because she is particularly good at that. Maybe the abortion cases being declared moot and lower court decisions vacated were so important to Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor that they felt they could convince the consersatives of the correctness of vacating those rulings by going along with the conservatives on vacating the emoluments cases rulings.

And no, the NY pandemic regs case is not limited to its facts. The only SCOTUS opinion I can think of that is explicitly limited to its facts is the infamous Bush v. Gore opinion, one of the three worst SCOTUS opinions of all time (outdone only by Dred Scott and Citizens United).

[oasis]

77. Expand SCOTUS to 15 Justices. nt

[SunSeeker]

88. Precendent warrants expanding it to at least 13 Justices.

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2021, 06:28 AM - Edit history (1)

At the time the number of Justices was set at 9, there were 9 federal appellate circuit courts, so it was one Justice per circuit.
In 1837, the admission of eight new western states to the union prompted Congress and President Andrew Jackson to add two more circuit courts—and two more justices, for a new total of nine. https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/2020/09/why-us-supreme-court-nine-justices

There are now 13 appellate circuit courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

So there should be at least 13 Justices.

[oasis]

90. I'm good with that number. nt

[apnu]

91. So the SCOTUS decided the statue of limitations is the POTUS term?

That any crimes he commits while in office can only be tried while the POTUS is in office?

If that's the case, why have any laws or courts at all?