3 ms·

> Justices Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most ardent conservatives, and Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, have both criticized qualified immunity on separate gr

> Justices Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most ardent conservatives, and Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, have both criticized qualified immunity on separate grounds. So... why did the Court decline?

Tomte 6y ago
Because two is not a majority.
scythe 6y ago
This is a good question. SCOTUS is split 5-4 by "party" (President appointing), so with Thomas dissenting, there would have to be at least two "liberal" judges supporting this decision, since only four judges need to approve hearing a case. However, the order was unsigned, so we will probably never know.
grensley 6y ago
Often it's because they would rather have the legislative branch figure it out.
thrill 6y ago
The Court recognizes it has limited time and generally tries to choose cases that it feels it can make a solid argument of more than a single vote one way or another. Some cases are likely obvious, but many are contentious. The contentious ones need to be clarified by the elected representatives, as that's most explicitly their job. The obvious ones are frequently simply pointing out the unconstitutionality of some law as it's written, again reflecting on the poor job those same elected representatives have done.
- yboris 6y ago
  Unrelated, but has there been any push to require a "reason for this law" section for every law put on the books? It seems to me like a simple requirement to make legislators be explicit why a law is on the books would be of tremendous service to the public, the judges, and others involved. And it would cost almost nothing (it does not take a long time to write up a "commit message" of why a "code change" is happening).
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    "Whereas" is commonly the first word of a bill.
vorpalhex 6y ago
I'm disappointed that they declined, but I suspect they are worried about weighing in on what may be perceived as a partisan question. It's one of the reasons the court has traditionally bunted on cases like this in the past.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  For Thomas and Sotomayor to agree somewhat undercuts potential accusations of partisanship.
alistairSH 6y ago
The Court is not bound to hear any particular case. They typically only hear cases where the regional appellate courts have differed significantly on interpretation of the law. I'm not aware of the lower courts have much disagreement here. They almost all afford broad QI to police officers.
tyre 6y ago
They might have suspicions about qualified immunity but that doesn't mean they have to hear this case. Whether they grant a writ is specific to that case

Tomte 6y ago

Because two is not a majority.

scythe 6y ago

This is a good question. SCOTUS is split 5-4 by "party" (President appointing), so with Thomas dissenting, there would have to be at least two "liberal" judges supporting this decision, since only four judges need to approve hearing a case. However, the order was unsigned, so we will probably never know.

grensley 6y ago

Often it's because they would rather have the legislative branch figure it out.

thrill 6y ago

The Court recognizes it has limited time and generally tries to choose cases that it feels it can make a solid argument of more than a single vote one way or another. Some cases are likely obvious, but many are contentious. The contentious ones need to be clarified by the elected representatives, as that's most explicitly their job. The obvious ones are frequently simply pointing out the unconstitutionality of some law as it's written, again reflecting on the poor job those same elected representatives have done.

yboris 6y ago
Unrelated, but has there been any push to require a "reason for this law" section for every law put on the books? It seems to me like a simple requirement to make legislators be explicit why a law is on the books would be of tremendous service to the public, the judges, and others involved. And it would cost almost nothing (it does not take a long time to write up a "commit message" of why a "code change" is happening).
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  "Whereas" is commonly the first word of a bill.

vorpalhex 6y ago

I'm disappointed that they declined, but I suspect they are worried about weighing in on what may be perceived as a partisan question. It's one of the reasons the court has traditionally bunted on cases like this in the past.

jessaustin 6y ago
For Thomas and Sotomayor to agree somewhat undercuts potential accusations of partisanship.

alistairSH 6y ago

The Court is not bound to hear any particular case. They typically only hear cases where the regional appellate courts have differed significantly on interpretation of the law. I'm not aware of the lower courts have much disagreement here. They almost all afford broad QI to police officers.

tyre 6y ago

They might have suspicions about qualified immunity but that doesn't mean they have to hear this case. Whether they grant a writ is specific to that case