Sunset is approaching and I’m juggling a busy schedule, so I’ll keep my remarks on the Missouri order brief.
First, the Court’s treatment of standing appears only in a footnote. I remain unconvinced that any party truly had standing, though at least five members of the Court disagreed, including the Court’s leading proceduralist.
Second, the per curiam note mentioned that Justice Kavanaugh’s prior orders carried no dissents. I still doubt that all three of those orders were unanimous. It may be that Justices Thomas and Alito chose not to alienate Kavanaugh, perhaps to avoid friction.
Third, the remark that the ruling should not have come as a surprise was gratuitous. There were two summary rulings with no explanations. The earlier case involved serious AISG issues, whereas the federal case did not. Apparently the previous cases centered entirely on Purcell. That much is worth noting.
Fourth, the Court asserts that the merits here are unclear. I suspect this concession was the price paid for unanimity.
Fifth, this is an ironclad Purcell ruling that conservatives are likely to cite for years to come. They may see value in having a unanimous ruling on this point.
I was very mistaken about the lighting docket here. It seems the Justices felt compelled to push back against the Eighth Circuit in this instance.
