An Attorney General Revised: No Evidence to Undo a Supreme Court’s Decision to Execute a Black-Hole Shooter

Steve is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a CNN legal analyst. He is the author of the upcoming book “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.” His opinions are not shared in this commentary. View more opinion at CNN.

Last week, the Supreme Court gave the go ahead for Alabama to execute Alan Miller who killed three men in a 1999 workplace rampage. Miller’s death warrant was set to expire three hours before the court ruling. In a turn of events, the state wasn’t able to execute Miller before midnight because prison officials couldn’t access his vein to administer the lethal injection.

Nonetheless, it was the third time in less than a year that the justices have granted a state’s emergency request to allow an execution that lower courts had blocked to go forward.

And like the first two (which divided the high court 5-3 and 5-4, respectively), the majority wrote … nothing. There was no explanation for why the District Court, which wrote a 61-page opinion explaining why Miller was likely to succeed on his challenge to his method of execution, was wrong. There was no explanation for why the conservative-leaning, Atlanta-based federal appeals court, which refused to undo the District Court’s ruling by a 2-1 vote in a 32-page decision, was wrong. There was no explanation for why Alabama was right. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted to send a man to his death – and they couldn’t be bothered to tell him why.

The 17th was used by the justices in order to overturn lower court rulings and the 14th was used without explanation. (During the court’s previous term, 20 of its 24 grants of emergency relief likewise came with no opinion.)

The state claimed that it had no record of receiving the form, and so it believed it was free to use its lethal injection protocol. The District Court found that it was likely that Miller had submitted the form and that the state had simply placed it somewhere else.

That kind of factual finding by a trial court is typically given significant weight on appeal, and can only be overturned if an appellate court concludes that it was “clearly erroneous.” The trial court can be given deference, that’s the idea. The lower court has had the chance to listen to witnesses and check their credibility, which is important for closer issues.

The Supreme Court has the power to overrule a lower court’s conclusions in relation to the law or fact. The problem is that people think justices leave when the lower courts have gone to great lengths to explain and defend their rulings, as in Miller’s case. The court at least appears to be acting for political reasons rather than legal ones.

To take another example, consider the justices’ summary ruling in June in a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting. The judge explained in detail the reasons why the maps the Louisiana Legislature adopted were in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The District Court ordered the Legislature to try again, specifically concluding that there was plenty of time to draw lawful maps before the 2022 midterm cycle.

There is no serious argument to be made that the Supreme Court should be required to explain all its actions. Every year, the justices receive more than 5,000 appeals, but can’t provide a detailed explanation for their decision not to take up most of them. It is possible to defend the practice of not providing an explanation when denying a request for emergency relief, even when the justices are able to stop the execution.

A case study of a merger review action filed by an accountant and the F.T.C. in a federal court trial: The case of Thomas Buffington

The first case concerns a company that makes body cameras for law enforcement and is being investigated by the F.T.C. for a merger review. The company tried to file a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the agency had no authority to review the merger and that the structure of the agency was unconstitutional.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has a case against an accountant that involves a similar issue. The accountant, Michelle Cochran, sought to challenge the agency’s structure in federal court before administrative procedures were completed. The Fifth Circuit agreed that she should be able to bring her claims, creating the sort of conflict between federal appeals courts that often prompts Supreme Court review.

On Nov. 8, the justices will consider whether states can require corporations to agree to be sued in that state’s courts as a condition of doing business in the state.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from the Air Force veteran who had challenged the authority of the department of veterans affairs to deny him certain benefits.

The court’s decision to stay out of the dispute sidesteps a fresh challenge to the so-called administrative state, a move that will frustrate conservatives who are seeking to cut back on the power of federal agencies.

The VA’s “misguided rules” hurt a lot of disabled veterans and that’s why Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court’s decision.

Air Force veteran Thomas Buffington was diagnosed with a disability and became eligible to receive disability benefits in 2000. In 2003, he was recalled to active-duty status in the Air National Guard. Following the law, he discontinued receiving the benefits for that period of time so he wouldn’t be paid double.

The Chevron doctrine and the Supreme Court’s response to NRDC v. Utilitary Disciplinary Laws

But he lost when a federal court cited a Supreme Court case from 1984 decision called Chevron v. NRDC. When courts should defer to the government agency’s interpretation of a statute is determined by theChevron doctrine.

Courts need to consider whether the law is ambiguous when reviewing an agency action. If it is not, the analysis ends. If the language is not clear, the court may consider the agency action to be reasonable under the law. The doctrine is criticized by some conservatives, who argue that courts shouldn’t defer to the agencies.