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 …
-
-
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." -
I was a 1L. And, yes, I agree! Here's my totally random and new brainstormed theory: Maybe Gorsuch's dissent in Oil States is what held Oil States up?!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Alito did the same: https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/349892585306849281?s=21 … But whichever decision went first on that day woulda surely acted as the spoiler for the other
-
That’s the one I was remembering! Thanks...
-
Too bad link from 2013 is now broken. Here’s the relevant passage from Alito:pic.twitter.com/61PPVmdpyJ
End of conversation
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.