I think that it's every lawyer's nightmare to file a brief that includes internal notes like these... That said, is it wrong for me to take at least some pleasure from the identity of the culprit here? (H/T: @NATSECUSA.) https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/988805989041344512 …
-
-
If I remember correctly, there were clues in whichever of Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor came out first about what the other one held. So maybe this is a reaction to concerns about such sleuthing?
-
No, I think it's simply a matter of having to switch because the Gorsuch opinion reads "Recently, the Court upheld" instead of "Today, the Court upholds." Thomas's OS opinion was probably supposed to be out last week and got held up.
-
That makes sense. Here was the part from the Chief's dissent in Windsor that gave us the result in Perry ahead of time:pic.twitter.com/fOasjhjgJN
-
Yup--I was in SCOTUS cafeteria w/others who worked on the Dellinger "no standing" brief, and our jaws hit the floor when we read that in Windsor. The problem today, however, is that Gorsuch's opinion actually assumes CT's had already issued (which was likely the original plan).
-
And there was originally supposed to be a decision day last Wednesday that got scrapped, lending further credence to the “Oil States got held up” theory (on which, to be clear, nothing of any real significance actually turns).
-
Oh, yeah. That could have been what that was about.
-
Did this happen with Gratz/Grutter, or the 10 commandments cases?
-
I wasn't as obsessive a
#SCOTUS watcher back then (Gratz & Grutter came down when I was a 2L), so have no idea. But it's odd that they'd break what seems like a strong norm for order of opinions just to avoid such a silly (and vanishing) "problem." - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.