After eight relists, the petition is denied, yet Justices Thomas and Alito would have summarily reversed, essentially following the reasoning laid out in Judge Larsen’s separate opinion.
Reinink v. Hart raised an excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment. The proceedings were shuffled three times and relisted after eight conferences. On May 26, certiorari was denied by the Court. Yet an unusual notation appeared:
Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the petition and summarily reverse for essentially the reasons given in Judge Larsen’s separate opinion. See Hart v. Grand Rapids, 138 F.4th 409, 426–428 (CA6 2025).
It is not uncommon for a Justice to dissent from the denial of certiorari, and maintain they would have summarily reversed. I found eleven such cases since 2012. But in each such case, the dissenting Justice authored an opinion explaining why he or she would have SumRev’d.
But here, Justices Thomas and Alito jointly voted to summarily reverse the lower court opinion without writing separately. And they did so “for essentially the reasons given” by Judge Larsen’s separate opinion. Larsen’s opinion, which concurs in part and dissents in part stretches about three pages.
I suppose this dissent is a compliment. The Justices didn’t even feel compelled to write separately. They just adopted a lower court judge’s opinion. But the word “essentially” is a hedge. They apparently disagree with something, but do not tell us what.
What happened here? Thomas and Alito kept the case alive for five months, hoping to find another two votes for cert, but were unable to do so. They could have written a dissental, but it is the end of the term, and more important work is on the docket, so they just let Judge Larsen speak for them.
