E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Candor in Supreme Court Opinions: A Skeptical Query
Mark Tushnet
Dissenting in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Breyer commented on the majority's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall: "Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next." Observers (correctly, in my view) took that as a signal that progressives should worry about the prospect that Roe v. Wade (or at least Whole Women's Health) would be soon overruled. That opinion was published on May 13.
On January 1, 2019, the Court heard reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, in which the core issue was whether to overrule Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank. On June 21, a majority did overrule Williamson County. It seems highly likely (the probability seems to me as close to 100% as you can get -- the most natural inference about why the case was reargued is that after the initial argument, without Justice Kavanaugh yet on the Court, the Court divided evenly on the question of overruling Williamson County) that Justice Breyer knew in May that Knick would do what it did. I wonder whether under the circumstances it was appropriate to frame the signal in terms of "wondering what comes next."
Two "qualifications": Until a decision is handed down there's always the possibility that someone will change -- in the case of Knick -- his vote, so technically Justice Breyer could indeed "wonder" what comes next. But, in light of the likely reason for reargument, that seems hypertechnical. And maybe alternative ways of sending the signal about Roe or Whole Women's Health would have been clumsier. Still, I do wonder whether Justice Breyer's comment was appropriately candid.