Photo
by
Collection
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
via
Getty
Images
There
were
some
very
surprising
legal
outcomes
last
year:
Young
Thug
walking
away
from
a
RICO
charge
with
probation,
they
continued
the
functional
impeachment
of
Pauline
Newman,
and
people
kept
on
using
ChatGPT
to
do
their
lawyering
despite
the
obviously
clear
fault
in
its
stars.
But
what
was
the
worst
legal
outcome
from
the
Supreme
Court?
Pulling
inspiration
from
Austin
Sarat’s
write-up,
let’s
go
through
some
of
the
worst
decisions
the
Supreme
Court
handed
down
this
year.
-
1.
We
have
to
pretend
that
Justice
Kavanaugh
knows
more
about
the
effects
of
alcohol
consumption
than
experts
who
do
chemistry
for
a
living.
Loper
Bright
Enterprises
v.
Raimondo
is
a
long
case
name,
but
fret
not:
it
can
be
usefully
abbreviated
as
Chevron
is
Dead.
The
underlying
reasoning
was
that
judges
are
not
only
better
suited
to
interpret
statutes
than
field
specialists,
but
the
Constitution
requires
it.
This
idea
that
judges
know
best
might
make
sense
in
theory,
it
isn’t
the
case
in
practice.
It
didn’t
take
very
long
for
one
of
the
brightest
minds
on
the
court
to
crack
everyone
up
when
he
repeatedly
confused
Nitrogen
Oxide
(dangerous
ozone
pollutant)
with
Laughing
Gas
(the
teehee
spray
the
dentist
uses
to
make
your
root
canals
a
lot
more
pleasant).
Expect
a
rise
in
food-borne
illness
and
rat
poison
in
your
frankfurters.
As
written,
the
opinion
leaves
enough
wiggle
room
for
some
of
the
protections
gained
from
decades
of
Chevron
deference
to
stay
in
place,
but
don’t
expect
them
to
last
if
the
issue
comes
before
the
Court
again.
-
2.
There’s
nothing
cruel
about
arresting
people
for
sleeping
outside
when
they
can’t
do
elsewise.
We
used
to
be
a
reasonable
country:
you
could
have
an
ordinance
preventing
loitering
or
panhandling,
but
if
a
homeless
person
was
found
sleeping
on
the
sidewalk
and
had
nowhere
else
to
go,
you
had
to
check
and
see
if
there
were
any
empty
beds
at
the
shelter
before
you
policed
them
for
being
unconscious
in
public.
What
else
could
you
do
without
being
cruel?
2024
answered:
You
don’t
have
to
worry
about
that!
City
of
Grants
Pass
v.
Johnson
rewrote
common
sensibilities
and
announced
that
there’s
nothing
cruel
about
punishing
a
person
with
nowhere
to
go
for
not
going
somewhere
else.
-
3.
That
whole
Watergate
debacle?
Totally
above
board!
Trump
v.
United
States
granted
Presidents
broad
protection
against
prosecution
for
actions
that
are
official
acts
of
office.
Does
that
include
sending
the
military
to
assassinate
political
opponents?
Hell,
maybe!
This
is
a
fearsome
power
to
hold,
especially
when
it’s
in
the
hands
of
a
person
who
campaigned
on
arresting
his
political
opposition
and
bragged
about
how
he
could
shoot
someone
in
broad
day
light
years
before
this
opinion
was
handed
down.
Four
more
years
of
greatness.
These
are
all
bad
outcomes,
but
Grants
Pass
holds
a
special,
morally
objectionable
place
in
my
heart.
I
won’t
pretend
to
play
anthropologist,
but
there’s
a
story
attributed
to
Margeret
Mead
—
likely
incorrectly
—
that
a
healed
femur
was
the
earliest
sign
of
civilization.
Veracity
aside,
I
genuinely
believe
that
you
can
learn
a
lot
about
a
person
and
a
people
by
how
they
care
for
their
worst
off.
In
other
words,
safety
nets
are
a
sign
of
a
civilization’s
strength,
and
Grants
Pass
is
just
about
the
strongest
refutation
of
“give
me
your
tired,
your
poor,
your
huddled
masses
yearning
to
breathe
free,
the
wretched
refuse
of
your
teeming
shore”
we’ve
seen
from
the
Supreme
Court.
The
Year’s
Worst
Legal
Decision:
2024
Edition
[Verdict]
Earlier:
People
Are
Scrambling
To
Understand
Presidential
Immunity,
So
Many
Of
The
Opinions
Are
Cracked
Is
This
The
Roberts
Court
Or
The
Clarence
Court?
Struggling
With
The
Status
Versus
Conduct
Distinction?
So
Are
The
Supreme
Court
Justices
SCOTUS
Just
Greenlit
The
Crime
Of
‘Sleeping
While
Homeless’
As
Totally
Fair
Game
John
Roberts
Says
Judges
Should
Decide
How
Much
Rat
Poison
Is
Too
Much
For
Your
Hot
Dogs
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.