It was an odd and sad year at the Supreme Court. Most years, reporters and pundits devise a “theme” that’s mostly an artificial construct driven by the vagaries of the docket: “The Court moved left/right/minimalist/unanimous …” But this year there actually is a real theme: the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia’s passing “deflated” what would otherwise have been yet another blockbuster term in many ways, defusing several high-profile cases as well as removing the most quotable pen on Earth from media coverage these last weeks of June.
In practical terms, however, Scalia’s absence was felt in ways different than most people assume. For example, of the major cases, only Friedrichs (worker rights) came out the other way, affirming the lower court by a 4–4 vote that would’ve been a 5–4 reversal with Scalia. United States v. Texas (immigration) would’ve been a 5–4 affirmance of the lower-court injunction instead of a 4–4 affirmance. Fisher II (affirmative action) would’ve been a 4–4 affirm instead of 4–3. Zubik (contraceptive mandate) would’ve been 5–4 reversal instead of a weird 8–0 decision to vacate that effectively forces a compromise that the challengers can accept. Whole Women’s Health (abortion) would’ve been a 5–4 reversal instead of a 5–3. To be sure, there would’ve been interesting nuances from the opinions in Scalia’s presence — which may have set precedents for, say, future executive actions — but the direct results wouldn’t have really changed except in Friedrichs (which was a big deal, don’t get me wrong) and a handful of lower-profile cases.
Also, this was a term of very few surprises; the conventional wisdom was borne out in every case that I followed except Fisher II. I still can’t figure out what Justice Kennedy was doing there, reversing himself from Fisher I regarding deference to administrators and voting to uphold a use of racial preferences for the first time ever. Maybe he was just tired of the case. Indeed, both Fisher and Whole Women’s Health, while making national news due to their fraught subject matter, are minimalistic and sui generis, dealing with very specific government policies.
But regardless of the good, bad, and ugly, when the dust cleared, there was one aspect of continuity that’s particularly gratifying to me: Cato continued its successful streak in cases in which we filed amicus briefs. While not as dominating as two terms ago, we still managed to pull off a 4–4 (or 3–3‑2, as I’ll explain shortly) record.
Here’s the breakdown, in the order the opinions arrived:
Winning side (4): Luis v. United States; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes; Zubik v. Burwell; United States v. Texas (4–4 affirming our position).
Losing side (4): Evenwel v. Abbott; Fisher v. UT-Austin; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (4–4 affirming position we opposed).
But regardless, we still pipped our main competition, the U.S. government, which went 13–14 on the term, including a record 10 unanimous losses. This administration is easily the worst performer of any to have come before the Court in modern times (and probably ever, though it’s more relevant to compare Obama to Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy than, say, Benjamin Harrison). There are three basic reasons for this: expansive executive action, envelope-pushing legal theories, and Justice Kennedy acting like a libertarian on close cases.
I’ll have more to say on this in future commentary, but if you’d like to learn more about all these cases/trends and the views of Cato-friendly scholars and lawyers, register for our 15th Annual Constitution Day Symposium, which will be held September 15 to review the term and look ahead to next year. That’s also when we’ll be releasing the latest volume of the Cato Supreme Court Review, the editing of which will consume much of my summer.
