Think of it like a baseball game where the umpires spend the first inning arguing over whether the game should be played at all
By Michael Peabody –
When the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that’s dominating the news, many expect to hear arguments about the headline issue — abortion, free speech, religion, or gun rights. But once the lawyers begin and the justices start asking questions, it often sounds like they’re talking about something else entirely.
Why are they focused on whether someone has “standing”? Why are they asking if the case is “ripe”? Why are they debating whether federal court is even the right place to hear the case?
These kinds of questions often take up most of the Court’s attention during oral arguments. For non-lawyers, this can be disorienting. It sounds like the justices are ignoring the main issue. But in reality, they’re determining whether the Court is allowed to decide it in the first place.
Think of it like a baseball game. The crowd has come to see whether a team can hit a home run. But the umpires first have to check whether the batter is eligible, whether the teams were properly scheduled, and whether the field meets league rules. If the umpires find a problem at that level, the game might not be played at all.
That’s exactly what happens in Supreme Court cases. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Court can only decide real cases brought by the right parties at the right time. If the justices find a technical flaw (even a small one) they may dismiss the case without ever reaching the constitutional question.
This was clear in the December 2, 2025, oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin. The case involves faith-based pregnancy centers challenging a New Jersey subpoena that seeks donor and internal records. They argue the demand violates their First Amendment rights. But the Court’s discussion focused almost entirely on whether the centers filed the case too soon — before the subpoena was enforced. That’s a timing issue known as “ripeness.” The justices spent more time on that than on speech or religious rights.
This is not unusual. The Court often looks for the narrowest path to resolve a case. If it can decide based on procedure, it will. That avoids setting broad constitutional rules before the facts are fully developed. And it helps the Court avoid issuing opinions that could apply too widely or unpredictably.
Sometimes, the justices may agree with a party’s claim on principle but still dismiss the case because of a technical flaw. This keeps the Court within its limited role. It also preserves the ability to hear the issue again in a future case with cleaner facts or a stronger record.
So when arguments don’t match the public narrative, it’s not because the Court is ducking the issue. It’s because the Court plays by strict rules. Just like a baseball game has to follow its rulebook before the first pitch, the Court checks all the legal conditions before it reaches the big questions.
A ruling in First Choice is expected by June 2026. Depending on how the Court answers the procedural questions, the deeper constitutional arguments may or may not be addressed this term.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary):
Supreme Court arguments often focus on technical legal questions like “standing” or “ripeness,” rather than the headline issue. This is because the justices must first decide whether the case belongs in court at all. That’s what happened in First Choice v. Platkin, where the Court examined whether anti-abortion clinics could challenge a subpoena in federal court before it was enforced. These rules may seem minor, but they determine whether the Court ever reaches the constitutional issue the public is watching for. A decision is expected by June 2026.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney about their specific legal situations.
Like this article? Share it and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com to get early access to case updates, court decisions, and legal insights on religious liberty issues.
SEO Tags: Supreme Court and procedure, why justices avoid the big issue, First Choice case explained, ripeness and standing, how the Supreme Court decides cases
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
Leave a Reply