The Latest Breaking News from Sotomayor

The justices have been slow and quite agreeable -- so far.

The Court's originalists and traditionalists break out into their camps.

And what would have happened if Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch did not vote to grant the stay?

That happened in yesterday's opinions respecting the stay in Labrador v. Poe, twice in Justice Gorsuch's concurrence (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito), and once in Justice Jackson's dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor). Nice! For Sam's substantive analysis of Labrador, see this post.

The worst offender is not Jim Ho, but Carl Stewart.

There are reasons to suspect the justices were wrangling over language up until the last minute.

The states do not need Section 3 to impose qualifications on state-created positions. But only the national government should decide questions about the President.

Why did Jonathan Mitchell not vigorously defend Griffin's Case and Chief Justice Chase? And Mitchell missed Justice Barrett's question about direct/collateral challenges due to his refusal to accept the sword-shield dichotomy.

Justice Jackson explained that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in favor of expanding democracy. But Mitchell's concern about Foreign Emoluments Clause "boomerang" could have cut off a path of complete victory.

Not exactly what I expected, but a very rewarding experience.

From today's order in Students for Fair Admissions v. USMA at West Point: The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied. The record before this Court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing…