GORSUCH’S MAIDEN OPINION | 9th Circuit Gives Road Map to SCOTUS
June 13, 2017
TODAY IN HISTORY
|“On this day in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Miranda v. Arizona that established the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before being interrogated.” Andrew Glass with POLITICO reports.
MARKING MILESTONES
|“Newly installed Supreme Court JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH followed the letter of the law in his first opinion Monday — a ruling that dealt with whether collectors of debts are in all cases ‘debt collectors.'” That’s USA Today’s Richard Wolf reporting on the newbie justice’s first ruling which demonstrated his strict use of language. Wolf reports, “In a lively, 11-page unanimous ruling, Gorsuch said a law passed by Congress to guard against abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection methods doesn’t apply to people trying to collect debts owed to themselves. His reasoning had less to do with the practices of the profession than it did the precise meanings of words, the printed text of statutes, and the proper roles of Congress and the courts.”
EASY PEASY LEMON SQUEEZY
|“JUSTICE NEIL M. GORSUCH got a cushy assignment for his first Supreme Court opinion — a unanimous ruling affirming a lower court — and used it to showcase both his writing style and much-touted devotion to a textual interpretation of the laws Congress passes.” Robert Barnes with The Washington Post notes how Gorsuch’s first opinion offers a window into his writing style and his textual approach.
TOP-ED
|Writing in Bloomberg, Noah Feldman explains how JUSTICE GORSUCH’S maiden opinion was something of a hat-tip to JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, and why that’s not exactly a good thing. Feldman: “The case gave Gorsuch the chance to apply pure textual analysis of the law, ignoring policy interests and deciding in favor of big banks that buy up debts and then try to collect them. The fact that all the justices, even the liberal ones, were on board, symbolizes the emerging victory of Justice Antonin Scalia’s practice of ruling on a law’s text alone over approaches that interpret Congress’s purpose in passing the law. That development is unfortunate — because it rests on an unrealistic assumption about Congress’s ability and willingness to amend ambiguous statutes.”
THE OLE ONE-TWO PUNCH
|Yesterday, another federal appeals court ruled that PRESIDENT TRUMP’S travel ban should remain on hold. The 9th Circuit’s ruling follows a ruling last month by the 4th Circuit that concluded the president intended to discriminate against Muslims from the six countries he targeted in his executive order. In its judgement, the 9th Circuit rejected the argument that the policy is not reviewable by the courts holding, “Whatever deference we accord to the president’s immigration and national security policy judgments does not preclude us from reviewing the policy at all.”
HERE'S HOW IT'S DONE
|Garrett Epps writing for The Atlantic explains how the 9th Circuit yesterday gave a road map to the Supreme Court for how to strike down DONALD TRUMP’S travel ban noting, “sidestepping thorny constitutional questions and focusing on substance and procedure, the appellate panel offered the justices an escape route, if they care to take it.”
BREAKING THE TIE
|Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern also discusses the effects yesterday’s 9th Circuit ruling could have on a possible Supreme Court case pointing out, “The 9th Circuit found a way to block the executive order without calling the president a prejudiced liar or invoking contested claims of religious discrimination. It offers the Supreme Court a tool to stop the travel ban on the grounds of executive overreach rather than unconstitutional animus. Perhaps the justices have already made up their minds on the legality of Trump’s order. But if any were still undecided, Monday’s decision could help break the tie.”
OTHER NEWS
Microsoft Wins Xbox Class-Action Fight at U.S. Supreme Court
Bloomberg“Companies won a new procedural tool in class-action litigation as the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Microsoft Corp. in a lawsuit centering on its Xbox consoles. The justices unanimously said the consumers who sued Microsoft didn’t have a right to immediately appeal after a trial judge rejected their bid to press the case as a class action. The suit claims the Xbox console has a flaw that causes discs to be scratched during normal use.”
3 Things to Know After U.S. Supreme Court's Biosimilar Drug Decision
The National Law Journal“Drugmakers who introduce a “highly similar” version of an existing biological drug won on two grounds. They don’t have to wait to get FDA approval before serving the BPCIA’s required 180-day notice on the branded drugmaker. And they can opt out of the BPCIA’s “patent dance” – a complex exchange of disclosures about the biosimilar product and the branded drug patents – without risking a federal injunction.”