Hurdles Ahead on Brett Kavanaugh's Race to One First Street
Will Brett Kavanaugh be seated by the time the new Supreme Court term begins? Here are some time elements to consider.
August 17, 2018 at 12:22 PM
5 minute read
The legendary “First Monday in October”—the opening day of the Supreme Court's new term—can occur as late as Oct. 8, as the calendar goes. But not this term.
The first Monday this year is Oct. 1, the earliest it can possibly be. And that is just one of several factors that could make it difficult for Brett Kavanaugh—if he is confirmed by the Senate—to hit the ground running.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has set Sept. 4 as the first day for Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. Assuming that Senate Democrats will be unsuccessful in delaying the hearing, that date may sound like enough time for Kavanaugh to cross the finish line and don his robe for the high court.
But here are some timing elements to consider:
➤➤ The hearing will likely last three or four days. In other words, it wraps up on Sept. 6 or 7.
➤➤ Grassley told a radio host that it would take “probably two weeks” after that to finish a committee vote on his nomination. That's because of permitted delays and post-hearing written questions from senators that Kavanaugh has to answer. So, the committee vote could come as late as Sept. 21.
➤➤ The vote by the full Senate could take several days as well. That could put the vote at Sept. 24. Confirmation and swearing-in could take place by the end of the week.
➤➤ But the court's business begins on Sept. 24 with the “long” conference, where the justices consider hundreds of cert petitions that have piled up over the summer for review. That conference take place a week before the court session begins, by tradition.
➤➤ Obviously, Kavanaugh could not join in the long conference if he's not yet a justice by Sept. 24. But even if the process is fast-tracked and he is sworn in by then, it's not certain he would participate. Neil Gorsuch was sworn in on April 10 last year, and on April 17, the court issued a routine 16-page list of cert grants and denials and other court orders with an asterisk stating, “Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the motions, petitions, or attorney discipline orders appearing on this order list.”
And these calendar issues are not the only obstacle Kavanaugh faces. What about his chambers? What about his clerks?
Kavanaugh's predecessor, mentor and former boss Anthony Kennedy is clearing out his chambers, but there's no guarantee that the new justice will slide into the same suite.
When a justice retires, his or her chambers go up for grabs by other sitting justices, by seniority. Kennedy's is choice real estate, with a stunning view of the U.S. Capitol. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. is interested in moving in, according to buzz in legal circles. Any such move would open his chambers for other justices. This will take time to sort out.
But even if the moving process is lightning-quick, it is viewed as presumptuous for a nominee to “measure the drapes” and begin occupying the new court chambers before being sworn in. Kavanaugh could work from home, as justices used to do before the court building was completed in 1935. Nothing would keep him from reading cert petitions and briefs online to get up to speed.
As for law clerks, as with most new justices, Kavanaugh will likely draw from the ranks of those who clerked for him as a circuit judge and then went on to clerk at the Supreme Court. They can't start work until Kavanaugh does, but scouting out possible hires could begin quietly after his hearing. The bright side: as a top feeder judge, six of his former clerks are already on the job at the high court clerking for other justices, so he'll be surrounded by friendly faces eager to help.
As with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh's familiarity with the court and his bevy of clerks will help get him through, but the path between now and Oct. 1 may be steeper than it seemed at first.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute read4th Circuit Revives Racial Harassment Lawsuit Against North Carolina School District
3 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
‘Old Home Week’: Justice Breyer Hears Challenge to Cruise Ship Ordinance in 1st Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1Dispute Resolution Boards—Getting Real Time Decisions on Construction Projects
- 2Commonwealth Court Overturns Award of Damages Assessed Against Landlord on Claims of Unlawful Discrimination
- 3NY Top Court to Decide Whether County Governments Owe Special Duty to Foster Care Placements
- 4Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
- 5Some New Twists and Old Tricks for an Ethical New Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250