Today At SCOTUS

Four decisions were released today by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Lange v. California, No. 20-18. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined in part, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued an opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined, concurring in the judgment. 

HELD: There is not a categorical right to pursue to fleeing misdemeanor violator into his home without a warrant, although a true emergency may authorize law enforcement to do so. The case is remanded to determine if a warrantless search was authorized on this ground. This is a vanilla application of the Fourth Amendment that slightly clarifies the law by preventing the creation of a new categorical exception to the warrant requirement. It isn't a bad decision despite the fact that it makes it harder for law enforcement officers to know what to do.

2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Collins v. Yellen, No. 19-422. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan issued an opinion, ih which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined in part, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

HELD: Congress may not establish an independent agency led by a single director whom the President can remove only for cause. This gives force of law to the conservative "unitary executive" theory and echoes a similar recent decision related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. ___, in which the Court held that Congress could not limit the President’s power to remove the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to instances of “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance.” In so holding, the Court observed that the CFPB, an independent agency led by a single Director, “lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control.” This is a bad decision that limits the flexibility of Congress in organizing the structure of the government. 

SECONDARY HOLDING: Congress was within its rights to bar private causes of action against a government agency appointed conservator for actions taken within the scope of the conservatorship. "The “anti-injunction clause” of the Recovery Act provides that unless review is specifically authorized by one of its provisions or is requested by the Director, “no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.” [12 U.S.C.] §4617(f). Where, as here, the FHFA’s challenged actions did not exceed its “powers or functions” “as a conservator,” relief is prohibited." This isn't a great decision either, although it is quite limited in its scope and its practical application is unclear. The application here, where it barred a suit against the agency for taking actions as a conservator that were in the agency and the economy's best interest but not in the best interest of the shareholders of the company under conservatorship, is not troubling.

3. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L., No. 20-255. Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. 

HELD: It is unconstitutional for a public school to punish a student in anyway for out of school speech directed at a select group of friends on social media that does not substantially disrupt school activities and does not fall within some other category of speech (e.g. threats) that is not entitled to First Amendment Protection. The removal of the student from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for this speech violated her constitutional rights. This is a fair decision consistent with longstanding First Amendment jurisprudence.

4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. 

HELD: The State of California engaged in a compensable taking of property from farm owners when it authorized private union organizers to go onto a farmer's property for up to three hours a day up to 120 days per year to engage in union organizing of the farmer's employees there. The split was between the six conservative and three liberal justices. This is very bad law driven by anti-union animus.

Commentary: “Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid Quietly Rewrote Four Decades of Takings Clause Doctrine; For the first time, the 6-3 conservative majority powered a hard-right change in the law”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”