This term's sharpest dissents often looked beyond perceived flaws in majority reasoning to raise existential concerns about the role of the justices and lament the future of the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation. And at times, the tone of dissents could be "a bit more sharp than in years past," according to Andrew Kim, a partner in Goodwin's Appellate and Supreme Court litigation practice. "You don't see the measured tone that you typically see with the court. I feel like the exchanges between the justices across the majority and the dissent have become a bit more sharply worded. In some cases, I think that's deliberate." It's possible the facts of the Glossip case spoke to Justice Thomas' "core sense of justice," he said, while noting that Justice Thomas is also concerned with the court inserting itself into capital cases that are a matter of state law. "I think that is consistent with his view of collateral attacks and post-conviction review in general," Kim said. Please read the Law360 article for more.