Six Pack: Six Critical Insights from January 20th's Opinions

Overview:This episode offers six critical insights from last week's opinions.Six Pack Roadmap:1. Deceptive Unanimity Statistics Court achieves 71% unanimity rate (versus 42% last year) by clearing uncontested low hanging fruit cases; rate will drop as complex constitutional questions arrive later this term.2. Fractures Behind Unanimous Results: Two cases feature justices concurring only in judgment—agreeing with outcomes but rejecting majority reasoning; Jackson splits on procedural methodology in Berk v. Choy; Sotomayor objects to unnecessary constitutional analysis in Coney Island v. Burton.3. Strategic Opinion Authorship Pattern: Each majority opinion authored by different justice; only Gorsuch and Thomas remain without majority opinions this term, suggesting strategic distribution of constitutional precedent-setting opportunities.4. Thomas's Doctrinal Attack Signal: Thomas writes Ellingburg concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) targeting current Ex Post Facto jurisprudence, continuing his pattern of using separate opinions to undermine established legal frameworks.5. Ex Post Facto Originalism: Thomas advocates abandoning modern twelve-factor balancing tests for 1798 Calder v. Bull approach; would subject civil penalties, administrative enforcement, and regulatory sanctions to constitutional scrutiny regardless of legislative labeling.6. Emergency Docket Constitutional Chaos: Trump v. Cook oral arguments reveal dangers of rushed litigation creating inadequate factual records; Justice Alito highlights how time pressure forces courts into constitutional holdings rather than narrower statutory grounds.Referenced Cases:• Berk v. Choy - Unanimous decision on Delaware affidavit requirements conflicting with federal civil procedure rules; Jackson concurrence only in judgment preferring Rule 3 over Rule 8 analysis• Coney Island v. Burton - Unanimous decision with Sotomayor concurrence only in judgment objecting to unnecessary due process constitutional analysis• Ellingburg v. United States - Thomas concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) advocating originalist Ex Post Facto interpretation based on Calder v. Bull (1798)• Trump v. Cook - Emergency docket case involving Federal Reserve governor removal; oral arguments criticized rushed litigation timeline creating inadequate factual development