Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

by June 5, 2025
June 5, 2025
Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

Walter Olson

This morning the Supreme Court handed down unanimous decisions in six cases. Three are likely to pass with little notice (Labcorp v. Davis, class action certification without injury, dismissed as improvidently granted; CC Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, foreign sovereign immunity meets personal jurisdiction, Samuel Alito writing; Blom Bank Sal v. Honickman, protecting finality of judgments, Alito writing). The bigger news is that the Court decided three cases that could have been ideologically polarizing, and in each case, one of the Justices from the liberal wing wrote an opinion likely to please more conservative onlookers. 

In Smith & Wesson Brands, campaigners seeking gun control through liability litigation had tried yet another way to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), in which Congress cut off such suits, by bringing in the government of Mexico as a plaintiff. The Justices weren’t having it, and Elena Kagan wrote for a 9–0 Court, with concurrences from Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson. No Justice appeared to be looking for a way to evade and subvert PLCAA, a goal that is still popular in some activist and legal academic circles. 

In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the state of Wisconsin had interpreted the religious-organization exemption to its unemployment compensation program to exclude Catholic Charities on the grounds that its programs weren’t religious enough; they didn’t proselytize and were happy to serve non-Catholics. That approach played favorites between religious charities based on theological principles of how to do good works and flunked strict scrutiny, the Court ruled 9–0 per Sotomayor, with Thomas and Jackson concurrences. It could prove an important legal reinforcement for the independence of church institutions. 

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the unanimous Court ruled that “reverse” discrimination suits don’t need to clear an additional threshold of background circumstances. As I put it in a statement for Cato:

Federal civil rights law generally entitles employees who say they were victims of so-called reverse discrimination—that is, based on their membership in a majority or otherwise dominant demographic group covered by the law—to the same right to sue as minority employees. Some federal courts nonetheless have required them to meet an additional and heightened standard of evidence, based on the idea that that kind of discrimination is exceptional and should require extra proof. Not so. It’s heartening to see a unanimous Supreme Court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing, make clear that the law here is plain, and equality means everybody.

Every few years I write about how for all the genuine ideological conflict that plays out at the Court, most of its business is done on a more collegial, craftsmanlike, and consensus-seeking level. Here’s what I wrote in 2014 after the Court surprised some observers by handing down two unanimous decisions on business cases, one nominally “pro-business” and the other the opposite. 

The cases remind us that despite the various attacks on the Court as result-oriented and ideology-driven, much of its work consists simply of trying to keep the law on a logically coherent and predictable course. Anti-business activists couldn’t win a single vote for their supposed human rights claims in Daimler, just as their more radical claims had unanimously flopped in Kiobel. By the same token the organized business community couldn’t win a single Justice in AU Optronics, though it put a real effort into defending its Fifth Circuit victory. 
Some upcoming decisions will probably be contentious in a way today wasn’t, but don’t lose sight of the wider elements of commonality. They are part of what makes the Supreme Court tick.
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Quick Login to AmourFactory: A Beginner’s Guide
next post
Ex-Biden advisor calls Jean-Pierre ‘kinda dumb,’ deletes tweet, says she’s not a ‘genius-level Black woman’

You may also like

High Court Approves California’s Pork Production Standards

May 12, 2023

Rand Paul’s Bill Taking a New Look at...

December 7, 2023

Let Them Stay

May 2, 2023

Colombia Faces Its Hour of Danger under Petro

April 19, 2024

Are Police-Worn Body Cameras Useful?

August 25, 2023

Including Emergency Spending in Fiscal Projections Distorts the...

April 25, 2024

The Prospects for Mar-a-Gaza

February 5, 2025

Friday Feature: Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit Program

June 9, 2023

Sanders and Hawley Are Wrong on Rate Caps

February 18, 2025

The Jones Act’s Role in Encouraging Puerto Rico’s...

May 1, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Trump, lawmakers react after ‘big, beautiful bill’ clears Senate hurdle

      June 29, 2025
    • How Staff Can Strengthen HIPAA Compliance and Security

      June 29, 2025
    • Lotus denies plans to close Hethel factory amid US expansion talks

      June 29, 2025
    • Top university degrees lose sway as tech employers prioritise job-ready skills

      June 29, 2025
    • Government urges supermarkets to make healthy food more appealing in bid to tackle obesity crisis

      June 29, 2025
    • Senate Republicans ram Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through key test vote

      June 29, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,334)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,854)
    • Stocks (3,177)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved