« Self defender downs cop-killer | Main | "F" rated Congressman assaults interviewer »
More reading of tea leaves
As I noted during the last such exercise, the Supreme Court considers each two-week session of oral arguments a “sitting,” and the custom is that each Justice (if at all possible) gets to write at least one opinion from each sitting.
McDonald was heard during the sitting of February 22. That sitting had 13 cases, one of which was dismissed after it settled. As of today, from that sitting, Sotomayor, Kennedy and Breyer have written two opinions apiece, and Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas have written one.
That leaves three opinions to be written, and three Justices to write them: CJ Roberts, Ginsberg, and Alito. Hmm... first incorporation case in thirty years or so, perhaps most interesting case of the Term, likely to wind up in all the Con Law casebooks ... I suspect CJ Roberts may keep this one for himself.
Other than McDonald, the two remaining cases from that sitting are Skilling v. US, (prosecution for “theft of honest services” – interpretation, void for vagueness, and prejudicial publicity issues) and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (1st Amendment challenge to statute forbidding providing service, training or assistance to organizations listed as foreign terrorist groups).
4 Comments | Leave a comment
That is, assuming Scalia does not take all three honest services cases to be combined into one ruling. He has not issued a majority opinion for the December sitting when the other two honest services cases (Black and Weyhrauch) were heard and he is a critic of the law.
And if the Chief saves that opinion for himself, my further guess is that the decision will be extremely limited and pretty short.
My bet:
Ginsburg for Humanitarian
Alito for Skilling
Roberts for McDonald