A commenter on the Claim That Public School Employee Was Unconstitutionally Fired for Sharp Pro-COVID-Vaccine Post Can Go Forward thread wrote:
Eugene Volokh likes to post about cases that can go forward because they survive some kind of summary judgement. Mostly it just seems to rile up the usual commenters as either a biased miscarriage of justice (if they don't like the claims upheld when viewed in the light most favorable to one side) or as an absolute legal victory (if they like the claims so upheld). How often do such cases get a followup when finally resolved? What benefit* is there to report on such preliminary activity? Why not cases like these but that don't hinge on elements likely to be characterized as "lathering the rubes"?
(*That cases like this may be privately settled before further proceedings would be one argument, that this could be the one chance to discuss such a case. Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea whether this case presents anything legally interesting that a case that wouldn't mostly prompt comments on charter schools and vaccines and vaccine mandates and so on. So I could be off base here.)
I thought some other non-lawyer readers might have the same question, so here's the answer: I like to report on court opinions, because the court opinions
