Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the Courtroom, however there was some splintering on the rationale. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined Alito’s opinion in full. The Chief Justice and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined it partly. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Barrett wrote an opinion concurring partly and concurring within the judgment. Justice Thomas dissented.
Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Barrett’s separate opinion in full. the Chief Justice joined the opinion partly. The truth is, he joined all of Justice Barrett’s opinion apart from a brief (seven phrase) footnote. What might be in that footnote to which the Chief objected? Effectively, under is Justice Barrett’s one paragraph opinion and the offending footnote.
The opinion:
I be part of Half III of the Courtroom’s opinion. I agree that reversal is required below our precedent as a result of PAGA’s process is akin to different aggregation units that can’t be imposed on a celebration to an arbitration settlement. See, e.g., Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333 (2011); Epic Techniques Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. ___ (2018); Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ___ (2019). I’d say nothing greater than that. The dialogue in Components II and IV of the Courtroom’s opinion is pointless to the end result, and far of it addresses disputed state-law questions in addition to arguments not pressed or handed upon on this case.*
And the footnote:
*The identical is true of Half I.
