Can anyone (@rickhasen ?) explain how postponing juris is meaningfully different from noting probable jurisdiction and/or Bell v Hood? 1/2
-
I get that Court is saying it may ultimately find no jurisdiction exists, but same is true re noting "probable" jurisdiction. 2/2
-
-
But what's the point in doing so? In Vieth and LULAC, court noted probable jurisdiction.
-
disagreement about whether it raises a "substantial federal question"?
#appellatetwitter -
It's odd because I always understood noting prob juris to be Bell v Hood std & Shaprio holds Bell v Hood is satisfied for these claims.
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.