Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Wed, May 15th, 2019 7:06 am
Wednesday round-up
Richard Re analyzes Monday’s opinion in
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the court overruled a 40-year-old precedent and held that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent, for
this blog. At
The NCSL Blog, Lisa Soronen observes that Justice Clarence “Thomas spent a mere page explaining why a majority of the justices were rejecting stare decisis (let the decision stand) in this case.” Howard Wasserman writes at
PrawfsBlawg that “[t]here is no textual basis for” the court’s holding; “the majority instead relies on what is implicit in the structure and the ‘implicit ordering of relationships within the federal system.’” In an op-ed for
The New York Times, Leah Litman warns that “Hyatt made clear that the five conservative justices are perfectly content to overrule a precedent merely because they disagree with it[:] That should raise alarm bells about Roe[v. Wade], particularly as states enact draconian restrictions on abortion.” At Reason’s
Volokh Conspiracy blog, Stephen Sachs suggests that although “
Hyatt is an unfortunate opinion—not just because some of its reasoning might be questioned, but because it makes the job of defending originalist doctrine harder,” “it may have a silver lining: encouraging a slow, possibly generational shift in legal conservatives’ position on the common law.”
....
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts,
Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 15, 2019, 7:06 AM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/wednesday-round-up-474/
