united-states us-supreme-court
Understanding &quot;Statement of Justice Thomas respecting the denial of certiorari&quot;
<p>In the matter of &quot;Standing Akimbo, LLC, et al., v. United States&quot; (<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062821zor_6j37.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062821zor_6j37.pdf</a> at around page 28), Justice Thomas attached a statement to a denial of certiorari.</p>
<p>Not a lawyer, I'm just trying to understand exactly what this statement is/means/represents. As I understand it, the appellate decision was that the IRS is permitted to compel state authorities to surrender information it wants on this marijuana dispensary. The writ of certiorari then was an attempt to get SCOTUS to overturn that, correct?  Which they have denied, hence effectively supporting the government's stance on cannabis.</p>
<p>So, with that in mind, this statement is kind of a rant (totally righteous IMO, FWIW) on why the US position toward cannabis is incoherent and inconsistent.</p>
<p>Assuming all that is correct, what is the function of the statement? Is it a &quot;yeah, this sucks and the US position is ridiculous but you're stuck with it&quot;? Or a &quot;dissent&quot; from the denial of certiorari?</p>
<p>And is it normal for there to be a statement associated with a denial of certiorari?</p>

<p>I'd say it's more like a concurrence than a dissent. Justice Thomas isn't saying the Court should have taken the case; he's just raising question about the (implicit) reason the Court isn't taking the case.</p>
<p>Most experienced observers will read the statement as a signal that he is open to reversing <em>Raich</em> and hoping that someone will bring the right case in which to do that. But in the end, t amounts to pure commentary and has no legal effect.</p>
<p>The practice of filing these types of statements is not &quot;normal,&quot; as the Court rejects probably more than 95 percent of the cases that come to it, and it does so without comment. But it is hardly unprecedented to see these types of statements, and I assume that every justice (except perhaps Barrett, given her recent arrival) has made similar statements. From a quick search, I can find statements from <a href="https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist-3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh</a>, from <a href="https://casetext.com/case/abbott-v-veasey" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Roberts</a>, and from <a href="https://casetext.com/case/reynolds-v-florida-4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Breyer</a>.</p>
