The simplest way to figure out the current court is to apply a “Republican Party” filter before any judgment is applied. Texas arguing against adhering to treaties? Texas wins. New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Sorry blue-staters.
The court tends to attempt to narrow the scope of these party-first decisions, but it’s clear that they’re playing for party above country or sanity.
After that, the court is a mush-mash of deeply thoughtless polarized opinions, resulting in the senseless goat rodeo we presently have, but it’s much easier to figure out who will tilt which way after you apply the party filter.
Likely Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008). In this case, New York attempted to enforce a Passenger Bill of Rights law that required airlines to provide adequate food, water, ventilation, and restroom facilities during lengthy tarmac delays. However, the law was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal law preempts state regulations in aviation matters.
This is 16 year old case that didn't file for Supreme Court review so it is strange the parent comment would use it as an example of "The simplest way to figure out the current court...".
The court tends to attempt to narrow the scope of these party-first decisions, but it’s clear that they’re playing for party above country or sanity.
After that, the court is a mush-mash of deeply thoughtless polarized opinions, resulting in the senseless goat rodeo we presently have, but it’s much easier to figure out who will tilt which way after you apply the party filter.