I'm very curious about what happens on US v Texas without Scalia.
The brief responses to the contraception case kind of showcase the complicated situation SCOTUS is in right now. They took a bunch of important cases set up to make some law, not at all expecting they'd suddenly be in a situation where a bunch of ties looked like a plausible outcome.
On contraception this meant asking the lawyers to rebrief on how they feel about a possible compromise, something SCOTUS has never done before. But that's a case they didn't want to get rid of, because a 4-4 would leave a circuit split. US v. Texas doesn't have that problem -- but an affirmance by equally divided court is probably still not something Roberts wants to deal with.
There are a couple of options, of course -- they can toss it on standing, which lets them avoid getting to merits. This still sets some relevant precedent regarding federalism. There's also historical precedent to order the case reargued once a new justice is confirmed, although in this case that would mean an extremely long delay -- it might mean Obama's not even in office when the case is heard again!* So it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Of course the case could also just go 8-0 like the one person one vote case did and all of this theorizing would go to waste. We'll have to see.
* I still think it's likely Garland gets confirmed sometime before November.
