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
US Supreme Court. (Photo: Mike Scarcella / ALM)
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:
Get Ready for an 8-Justice Supreme Court, as Kavanaugh Controversy Persists
Female Clerks Stand by Kavanaugh Despite Assault Allegation
Veteran Prosecutor Michael Bromwich Joins Kavanaugh Accuser's Legal Team
Ford Agrees to Testify on Alleged Sexual Assault by Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh Supporters Ramp Up Public Relations Push Ahead of Hearing
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![Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/03/Apple-computer-sign-767x633.jpg)
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read![DC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row DC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2022/07/E-Barrett-Prettyman-Courthouse-2022-002-767x633.jpg)
DC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row
3 minute read![Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2023/04/Ninth_Circuit_Interior-7175-767x633.jpg)
Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee
![4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access 4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2021/08/Fourth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-767x633.jpg)
4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 2Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
- 3GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 4Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 5Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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