The timing of the Court’s ruling is immaterial to the overall outcome.
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Callais. The closing lines of the opinion conveyed the following:
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and thesecases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
However, the order does not take effect instantaneously. According to the Court’s procedural rules, the remand is not entered immediately. In a 2020 post, I outlined the mechanism by which judgments are formally recorded. Controversies over when judgments become final have surfaced in high‑profile matters, including Bush v. Gore, Boumediene, Trump v. Vance, Trump v. Mazars, DHS v. Regents, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, and others. And to be sure, after Obergefell was decided, jurisdictions outside the Sixth Circuit promptly issued marriage licenses to same‑sex couples, even though injunctions bound them. Be that as it may, love prevailed!
The private plaintiffs in Trump v. Callais have urged the Supreme Court to issue the judgment without delay. Louisiana has declined to take a position on the request, arguing that the issuance of the judgment is not material:
The State notes that the Court’s May 15, 2024 Order also states that, “[i]n the event jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order will remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.” That language can be read to conflict with the cited language above, which requires automatic termination of the Order if the lower court’s judgment is affirmed. That potential conflict, however, has no bearing here because, whether the Order is already terminated or will be terminated when this Court sends down the judgment, nothing prevents Louisiana from adopting a constitutional map and process consistent with this Court’s decision right now.
Louisiana is correct. The District Court did not issue an injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. Nothing prohibits Louisiana from treating the Supreme Court’s decision as binding precedent, even in the absence of an issued judgment. Moreover, once Louisiana draws up new maps in the coming days, the entire dispute will be moot.
The Supreme Court can prudently refrain from taking further action in this instance.
