the State took steps that, it said, would help ensure that a variety of other nongovernmental entities and governmental agencies would continue to provide access to necessary medical care and important women’s health and family planning…

[T]he decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy.

Accepting the commission's argument that Texas and Fasken could not seek review of its licensing decision requires us to ignore the full scope of the agency's own licensing proceeding.

It asks us to believe that the very state in which the agency intends to store spent nuclear fuel indefinitely cannot be heard in court to complain about the agency's plans.

It forces us to reimagine a statute expanding public access to the agency's administrative proceedings into one restricting access.

We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary function exception.

He will be remembered not just for his many contributions to this court's jurisprudence over almost 19 years of service, but for his kindness, his incredible Yankee work ethic, and his love of our Constitution and country.

Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions?

Doesn’t it entangle the state tremendously when it has to go into a soup kitchen, send an inspector in, to see how much prayer is going on?

Sounds like it's a pretty good deal. I'd like one.

Lower courts would be wise to take heed.

It's a hole in the ground.