Justice Kagan, and for the most part, Justice Sotomayor, seem intent on building bridges to Justice Barrett to help garner her vote. Justice Jackson, on the other hand, takes a different approach.
In Moyle, Justice Jackson accuses Barrett, as well as Chief Justices Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, of ducking the case because of a "convenient" argument by Idaho.
Some of my colleagues appear to view this convenient rhetorical maneuver as a material change that (also conveniently) reduces the conflict between state and federal law to the point that a ruling from this Court is no longer warranted. See ante, at 6–7 (Barrett, J., concurring). But it is both legally and factually implausible to say that Idaho's current litigating position actually mitigates the conflict between that State's law and EMTALA.
