Awaiting a Ninth Justice, Supreme Court Tinkers With Its Docket
Though the court does not explain why it reschedules or delays the consideration of pending petitions, it may be that the prospect of an eight-member court in the short or long term led the justices to shelve cases.
September 24, 2018 at 09:56 AM
4 minute read
The uncertainty surrounding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation may already be affecting the court's docket for the term that begins on Oct. 1.
Last week, the court pulled several high-profile cases off the list that the justices were scheduled to consider today at the court's so-called long conference. That is when the justices evaluate hundreds of petitions filed over the summer to decide whether grant review in the coming term.
Though the court does not explain why it reschedules or delays the consideration of pending petitions, it might be that the prospect of an eight-member court in the short or long term led the justices to shelve cases that might result in 4-4 ties. Justices traditionally try to avoid ties because they have the effect of allowing the lower court ruling to stand, without further resolution of the issue involved.
In the past, according to Vinson & Elkins Supreme Court specialist John Elwood, justices “definitely appear to have rescheduled cases to push off consideration of them, and I could see them rescheduling cases to await the arrival of a new justice.” But, he added, “There could be other explanations. Rescheduling is about the murkiest Supreme Court practice.”
Elwood, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, said his understanding is that any justice can have a case rescheduled. But, he said, “I suspect that the chief justice does most of the rescheduling, since I think he keeps the closest eye on the docket of all the justices.”
Among the cases that were scheduled to be discussed today but were recently rescheduled for a future unspecified date are:
➤➤ ConAgra Grocery Products v. California and The Sherwin-Williams Company v. California, key business cases challenging California's use of public nuisance law to exact damages from companies with long-ago involvement in promoting the use of lead paint. They were taken off the conference list on Sept. 20.
➤➤ Apodaca v. Raemisch and Lowe v. Raemisch, testing the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of severe solitary confinement for prisoners. They were taken off the list and rescheduled on Sept. 18.
➤➤ Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, asking whether the federal ban on sex discrimination in the workplace includes sexual orientation bias. They were rescheduled on Sept. 11, four days after Kavanaugh's hearing ended.
➤➤ Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a First Amendment dispute over a public school coach in Washington state who was fired for kneeling in prayer at a football game. The court rescheduled the case on Sept. 20.
Some of the rescheduled cases were ones that court-watchers hoped would spice up what was shaping up to be an otherwise lackluster term. Several death penalty cases also were delayed.
Just last Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said at a Federalist Society event, “The docket thus far doesn't currently have the blockbuster cases before the court, but there are several big cases in the pipeline.”
Some hot-button cases remain untouched on the conference list for today, including Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association and The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a dispute over whether a war memorial in the shape of the cross on public land in Maryland violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The court's decisions on whether to grant review in the cases discussed today will likely be announced Thursday, the same day Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford are expected to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
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
© 2024 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 All6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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