Joan Biskupic printed one other article about Justice Stevens’s papers. She offers some background perception into Grutter. Justice Stevens talked Justice Souter out of writing a concurrence, and Justice Stevens prevailed upon Justice O’Connor to quote an article his ConLaw professor wrote within the Chicago Bar Journal. We did be taught that O’Connor’s 25-year clock emerged in her early draft opinion. However up to now, no less than, the Stevens papers usually are not almost as revelatory as I hoped. (Mark Walsh wrote a enjoyable story about Justice Stevens and the coed prayer circumstances.)
Nonetheless, buried in Biskupic’s article was this passage:
After oral arguments and a preliminary vote in circumstances, the justices flow into notes and draft opinions as they hammer out the authorized foundation for a call. Customized dictates that each one 9 justices, or the “convention,” as they’re collectively known as, obtain copies of all correspondence between justices. So on the present bench, for instance, when Justice Neil Gorsuch sends a observe asking for a change in an opinion being drafted by Roberts, he varieties on the backside, “Copies to the Convention,” and all others can see the state of play.
Once I learn that, I assumed Woah! Definitely this data was not current within the Stevens papers. Gorsuch solely joined the Courtroom in 2017. So this apply is not more than six years previous. However, Biskupic particularly wrote “the present bench.” This reference would appear to replicate the Courtroom after Justice Jackson’s affirmation. So are we to consider that Biskupic is conversant in a memo that Justice Gorsuch wrote this time period? And never simply in any case. A case wherein Chief Justice Roberts is drafting a majority opinion–and a case wherein Justice Gorsuch presumably joined. Biskupic provides, Gorsuch included that observe in order that “all others can see the state of play.”
At current, the Chief is the one member with zero majority opinions. And I feel it very doubtless that the Chief has assigned himself the bulk opinion within the affirmative motion circumstances that have been argued in October. And it’s doubtless that Gorsuch joined that majority opinion. However what concerning the reference to “the state of play.” Are some votes in movement? Does Gorsuch need the opposite Justices to know that issues are in flux? The detrimental inference is that Gorsuch would possibly in any other case need to maintain this data between him and Roberts, however doesn’t accomplish that right here.
Is Biskupic signaling that she has seen, or no less than is conscious of inside deliberations in College students for Honest Admission? The reference to a Gorsuch memo, on the “present bench,” concerning a Roberts majority opinion, that Gorsuch joined, is much too particular to be coincidental. Biskupic may have made the identical level about memos being circulated after convention by citing any case from the Stevens information–even from Grutter itself. I’m wondering if Biskupic wrote this story simply to bury the chestnut about Gorsuch.
I do not know. Perhaps I’m paranoid. However I have been proper earlier than about “reporting” on leaks concerning Bostock and Dobbs. Let’s examine if somebody publishes the leaked opinion.