Did Justice Breyer Reveal How Supreme Court Will Decide a Pending Case?

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument Arizona v. San FranciscoThe Court will then decide whether States with interests should have the right to act to defend a regulation. In this case the court is referring to the so-called “Public Charge rule”. When the United States has stopped defending the regulation, it is subject to the creation of a new regulation that mirrors the Administration’s current views.

Justice Stephen Breyer made it clear that he would be deciding another case in oral argument. Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical CenterThe argument was made in October. Cameron This question is related to whether an attorney general of the state who is empowered to defend state laws should be permitted by the court to assist in the defense of state laws after they have been invalidated or rewritten by the federal courts.

This is the pertinent portion of Justice Breyer’s questioning Principal Deputy SolicitorGeneral Brian Fletcher, taken from the transcript of oral argument ().flagged by Lawrence Hurley of Reuters):

JUSTICE BRIEF: . . What about their argument? You say that only five were affected. But, you also added applicants for change of status. Their argument is that millions could be living across the border, but we do not know their location. It’s one billion dollars. You say five.

Okay. It’s one thing. They then say they have another ground. We can intervene if the court decision on the merits is wrong. This is a totally incorrect decision by the courts in the United States. If this stands, then the government will just accept it.

This allows them to avoid rulemaking under notice-and comment. That should give us the right to intervene and ask for rehearing En banc or to petition the Supreme Court.

Quite similar to the one we allowed in the case of attorney general. You are right. The other party was the one that won. Kentucky? Or — it just happened — pretty similar. See? You see?

We see the benefits. This is, for me, a problem that a law professor would have to solve. It’s a mystery to me. If we only have the Illinois case before us, we don’t necessarily need to go into this. So, I’m asking you what to do.

Tomorrow’s opinions will be released by the Supreme Court. Perhaps CameronIt is one of them.