Supreme Court Liberals Show Division in Recent 7-2 Decisions

The Supreme Court issued six decisions on Friday, with three notable cases revealing an apparent division among the Court's liberal justices. In these cases, Justice Elena Kagan joined with the six conservative justices in 7-2 decisions, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The cases involved vaping regulations, environmental standards, and disability discrimination, highlighting different approaches among the liberal justices.

In FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, the Court ruled that tobacco companies could challenge FDA regulations in their preferred circuit courts by partnering with local retailers. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion, which Kagan joined, while Sotomayor and Jackson dissented. In Diamond Energy v. EPA, Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion, also joined by Kagan, found that fuel producers had standing to challenge California's stricter emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, despite car manufacturers not contesting these regulations.

The third case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, concerned whether retired employees could sue under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in retirement benefits. The Court ruled 7-2 that retired individuals are not "qualified individuals" who can bring such claims, though it suggested other potential legal avenues might exist. Justice Jackson wrote a strongly worded dissent criticizing the majority's textualist approach, while Justice Sotomayor joined only portions of Jackson's opinion.

The different approaches taken by the liberal justices reveal potential strategic differences. Justice Jackson's dissents directly challenged the majority's reasoning and methodology, particularly in her critique of textualism in the Stanley case. Justice Sotomayor appeared to take a more measured approach, declining to join Jackson's most pointed criticisms while focusing on potential silver linings. Justice Kagan's decision to join the conservative majority in all three cases may reflect a strategic effort to build relationships with moderate conservatives for future cases.

These decisions come as the Court prepares to issue several major rulings by the end of the month. The apparent division among the liberal justices may indicate different philosophies about how to maximize their influence on a Court where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority. While Jackson appears more willing to issue forceful dissents highlighting fundamental disagreements, Kagan seems to be positioning herself as a potential bridge to conservative justices in hopes of influencing future decisions.