Quietly the Supreme Court did a lot this session (and across ideological lines) to curb the awful process of "forum shopping"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

1: "By an 8-1 vote, the justices said that state courts can’t hear claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs against companies that aren’t based there if the alleged injuries occurred elsewhere, too."

2: "By another 8-1 vote, they rejected a lower-court decision in Montana that allowed out-of-state plaintiffs to sue there over injuries suffered anywhere in the national network of Texas-based BNSF Railway. In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that, although BNSF has 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees in Montana, this isn’t a sufficient basis to sue there for injuries unconnected to the state."

3:"The justices unanimously ruled (PDF) on May 22 that patent suits should be filed only in the state where the defendant is incorporated. The decision will prevent many patent owners from bringing cases in the Eastern District of Texas, a federal jurisdiction known to be especially hospitable to patent-violation claims, which has made it a favorite of so-called “patent trolls.” More than one-third of all infringement suits are now filed there."

Good.

Who was the 1 in the 8-1 decisions?

Glad to see across-the-board decisions. (I don't use the word "bipartisan" because the SCOTUS is not supposed to be partisan.)

 Sotomayor. She wrote a spirited dissent to the first one.

Gilgul said:

 Sotomayor. She wrote a spirited dissent to the first one.

Interesting. I'll read later. I was thinking it was Thomas.