The outcome of the web designer case was never in doubt; the question was whether the Court would push the envelope in favor of future large Christian carve-outs in dicta. It didn’t; it stuck to the facts (the stipulation about the nature of the business in particular) and didn’t speculate about future cases. As a result, there is nothing in this decision that should get you whipped up. As to the future, we’ll just have to wait and see.
The student loan case is a different story. It was an unprincipled, partisan decision–and remember, I don’t support the program.
The majority opinion contains three parts. In the first, the Chief Justice finds that Missouri had standing, even though the record makes it perfectly clear that the state would suffer no concrete harm as a result of the loan forgiveness program. In the second, he digs hard to find a definition of “waiver” that is inconsistent with common usage. In the third, he makes reference to the vague, odious “major questions” doctrine and finds the program was inadequately authorized by Congress. Every one of the three parts of the decision is seriously flawed. In reality, what the Court is saying, and has said for the last few years, is that Democrats have no right to use the administrative system to make important policy changes that the GOP dislikes even if the literal language of the authorizing statute permits them. Will the Court use the same doctrine against a Republican administration in the future? Don’t hold your breath.
It is important that the impassioned dissent in this case was written by the usually diplomatic Justice Kagan. She is warning the majority that it is pushing too hard on partisan administrative law cases and losing its legitimacy in the process. Is Roberts listening? Only when it suits him.