CREW and Howell said that's wrong under the law, regardless of the rule, so the rule must go. Howell gave the FEC time to pass a new rule, which they didn't do, and the ruling was set to go into effect on Monday.
-
Show this thread
-
Stays were sought without resolution from Howell and the DC Circuit, leading Crossroads to file the request for a stay at SCOTUS. All such requests go to an individual justice initially, and Roberts is assigned the DC Circuit.
2 replies 50 retweets 124 likesShow this thread -
In the interim, both the DC Circuit and District Court denied the stay applications filed in those courts — leaving SCOTUS as the only available outlet.
0 replies 42 retweets 113 likesShow this thread -
Such stay applications directed to individual justices at the Supreme Court can be acted on individually or referred to the full court. They often are referred in contested matters.
2 replies 35 retweets 108 likesShow this thread -
The language in Roberts' stay order about "pending further order" suggests he views this as a temporary measure, put in place to keep Howell's ruling from going into effect until the full Supreme Court can decide how it wishes to resolve the stay application request.
5 replies 43 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Nonetheless, absent further action, the district court's ruling striking down the FEC rule — which was due to take effect Monday — is on hold now, by order of the Supreme Court.
2 replies 51 retweets 112 likesShow this thread -
The only times I've generally seen such temp, one-justice stays are in death penalty cases from states where, absent a stay, the state will proceed with an execution even while a stay request is pending. In that instance, a single justice will issue a stay while SCOTUS considers.
3 replies 71 retweets 151 likesShow this thread -
And those are instances where it's a stay NOW or death. So, I'm not quite sure why the Chief decided that a Saturday afternoon stay was necessary when the ruling doesn't even go int effect until Monday.
6 replies 77 retweets 205 likesShow this thread -
The question I've been discussing with people is this: Did the Chief Justice's stay just reverse the effect of a 4-4 vote? In other words, previously it would have taken 5 votes to grant a stay. Does this now mean it takes 5 votes for the stay to be lifted?
9 replies 57 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
If it's just a temporary stay by Roberts pending a referral or the lower court decision to the full court, isn't the full court still ruling on the lower court's decision rather than on Roberts's order? If so, I wold think the appellant still needs a majority of the full court
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That was my initial thought, but some have thought otherwise!
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Bizarre. Not well-versed in appellate procedure, but it would make so sense to me to treat this like an "appeal" of Roberts's stay, particularly if that stay is nothing more than a non-fully considered placeholder pending a referred decision.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.