The justices return to the bench today to hear a capital case featuring a rare amicus argument and a class action with … no amicus briefs. We've got the details below. Plus: Retired Justice John Paul Stevens's memoir promises to be an “interesting read.” (We concur.) Scroll down for links to our new reporting on how judicial law clerks—including Supreme Court clerks—are grabbing Trump nominations to trial and appellate seats. Thanks for reading Supreme Court Brief. Comments are always welcome at [email protected] and [email protected].

Stevens Memoir Set for May Publication

Lately, the story lines of written memoirs by Supreme Court justices—think Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor—have ended abruptly at a point before their authors joined the court.

The internal ethic of the current court is to remain quiet and reveal little about the details of their time at the court, and their interactions with other justices.

Their papers, usually made public only after their death, are only as revealing as the justices want them to be. Few eyebrows were raised when Justice David Soutermade it known that his papers would become public 50 years after his death—not his retirement. With any luck (for the justice) that means that scholars can peek at the 79-year-old Souter's official papers in 2088 or so, or about 80 years after he retired in 2009.

Now comes the retired justice John Paul Stevens at age 98, finishing up a revealing memoir that will be published in May, according to New York Times correspondent Adam Liptak's story posted online on Monday. It may open a path for future Supreme Court memoirs that can be both respectful and revealing.

Stevens have some inklings of his time at the court in Five Chiefs, his 2011 memoir that mainly focused on the chief justices he sat with. But his new memoir sounds like it will be more personal and vivid.

In the 2011 book, he called District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment decision, an “unfortunate decision.” In his new book, he discusses that he circulated his detailed dissent in that case five weeks before the late Justice Antonin Scalia circulated his majority.

It was a rare move, Stevens said, but he added, “I thought I should give it every effort to switch the case before it was too late.” (Stevens's circulation of his dissent draft was first reported by Marcia in her 2013 book The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution.)

Benjamin M. Cardozo School of Law professor Kate Shaw, one of Stevens' clerks who worked on the Heller dissent, tweeted Monday, “Cannot *wait* to read JPS's new memoir. I'm also not sure I've ever seen him publicly note that he circulated his draft dissent in Heller before the majority op went around. Didn't pick up a fifth vote, of course, but the story underscores how strongly he felt (then and now.)”

His book may also reveal more about Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, in both of which he wrote dissents, and many more episodes from his 35 years on the court.

Asked by Liptak what he hoped readers would take away from his memoir, Stevens said, “I'd like them to think it's an interesting read.” Sounds like an understatement.

A Class Action That's Devoid of Amicus Briefs

Class-action cases before the Supreme Court usually get a lot of attention from business lawyers and amicus groups. And last term, every argued case came to the court with at least one amicus brief.

But Nutraceutical v. Lambert, set for argument this morning, has attracted exactly zero friends, so to speak. No amicus briefs at all.

The case asks this: “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) establishes a fourteen-day deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification … The question presented is: did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules and excusing a party's failure to timely file a petition for permission to appeal, or a motion for reconsideration, within the Rule 23(f) deadline?”

Got all that? If you don't, you're not alone.

In his opposition brief before cert was granted, lawyers for class plaintiff Troy Lambert told the high court, “This is a small case involving an issue of little wider concern, and is a poor vehicle for certiorari.” Briefs in opposition routinely downplay the importance of the case, so as to encourage the justices to move on. But this brief is about as self-deprecating as we've ever seen.

The court granted cert in June, and our colleague Amanda Bronstad, an expert on class actions, says not to hit the snooze button on the case:

“It is important because lawyers on both sides of class actions, and some legislators, have fought for appeals courts to take up more appeals of class certification orders. Such interlocutory appeals, while allowed under the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, aren't mandatory and, according to some critics, can be disruptive and drag out the litigation.”

Two other reasons to pay attention:

>> The case comes from the Ninth Circuit, which has been in the news lately. The circuit ruled in favor of class action plaintiffs by relaxing certain deadlines, running contrary to rulings by seven other circuit courts. If the court overturns the Ninth Circuit ruling, it will fuel the fodder portraying that court as reversibly and reliably liberal.

>> It will be interesting to see how the justices and lawyers talk about the product that was targeted by Lambert's class: the Cobra Sexual Energy pill which, according to Lambert's brief, is “a purported aphrodisiac claiming to contain 'Horny Goat Weed' and a Brazilian herb known as 'potency wood.'”

By the way, the lawyers arguing are: John Hueston, partner at Hueston Henniganin Los Angeles; and for Lambert, associate Jonathan Herstoff of Haug Partners in New York, who argued in a precursor case before the court, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, last year.

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

>> The clerk legacy: Former SCOTUS clerks dominate the ranks of Trump's judicial nominees. [NLJ] And read more about clerks from our colleague Ellis Kim, who looked broadly at the clerkships of Trump's court nominees.

>> No rush on that: ”The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to turn down—at least for now—a chance to weigh in on whether President Donald Trump acted legally when he installed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions' chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, as acting attorney general earlier this month after demanding Sessions' resignation.” [Politico] Read the SG's court filing here.

>> No app for that: Apple Inc. faced a skeptical court Monday at arguments in a consumer antitrust case. [NLJ]

>> Still on the other court: Kavanaugh hasn't given up his side hobby of coaching youth basketball. [Deadspin]

>> Watching RBG: ”No amount of swag or hagiography can obscure the fact that, while Ginsburg is responsible for a great number of landmark legal decisions, her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible one: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement.” [Mother Jones]