Mechanical / Animal

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.

Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump

[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem

[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?

[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez

[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise

[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?

[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen

[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy

[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list

[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes

[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is