Okay. FINE. A very brief lawsplainer of the CONCEPT, not the details, of what SCOTUS did in the Deray McKesson First Amendment case. I'LL DO IT BUT I HATE YOU. [runs out of room] [slams door] [Don Giovanni overture playing really loud]

/1 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1323273931898277888?s=20

/2 The structure of American courts and federalism suggest that ideally FEDERAL courts shouldn't be the ones to say what STATE laws mean when it's not clear. Like, if California has a law saying "our senators must absolutely suck," state courts should say what "suck" means.

/3 To deal with this, we have a process called "certification," under which federal courts can send a question of state law to that state's highest court for resolution, rather than take a shot at determining how that state would interpret its own law.

/4 If you wanted to learn more about certification, because you believe you're a horrible person and deserve to, you could go, for instance here.

WALLOW IN CIVIL PROCEDURE YOU MISERABLE BASTARDS

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2935&context=clr

/5 Anyway in @deray's case the Supreme Court is saying "there's a First Amendment issue here but we won't have to address if it, as some people argue, the case against him is bullshit under Louisiana law. But that's a question of Louisiana law. Let Louisiana answer it."

/6 This serves federal court values of (1) not unnecessarily meddling in state law, (2) not deciding Big Questions when it's not necessary, and (3) not being forced to delve into atavistic legal codes primarily memorialized on truncheons.

/7 If Louisiana decides "this cop's claim is bullshit under our law," end of story. If Louisiana thin-blue-lines it, it could come back to SCOTUS to decide the First Amendment issue, which it will, with Alito voting for whatever best combines bootlicking and censhorship.

/end