« SCOTUS Symposium: General jurisdiction narrows further | Main | SCOTUS OT Symposium: Anticipating Which Canon Will Fire First in Esquivel-Quintana »

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Before turning to today's merits cases . . . .

With four (albeit relatively short) merits cases today, I'm sure we will have plenty to read and talk about, but before I sit down to do that, I thought I'd offer a couple of quick if obvious answers to one of Howard's starting questions. "What pending cert petitions are you watching and why? Which do you expect the Court to grant?"

Here's one case I definitely expect the Court to grant -- the travel-ban case recently decided by the Fourth Circuit and still pending in the Ninth. The administration has already said that it will seek review. I know that the Solicitor General's grant rate is normally a "mere" 70%, but this strikes me as the kind of issue where the Court will feel an obligation to grant the United States petition, even without a split. I wouldn't even be surprised to see the petition filed in the next month, to obtain review before the issue is stale or moot.

Here's one case I don't expect to be granted: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, now relisted for the eleventh time. At this point, I'd be shocked if this meant anything other than at least one, and probably more than one, Justice writing opinions concurring in/dissenting from/respecting the denial of certiorari.

And while I have the floor on the topic of non-merits work, I can't help but point to an intriguing attorney discipline order issued today, D-2971, In the Matter of Christopher Patrick Sullivan:

Due to mistaken identity, the order suspending Christopher Patrick Sullivan of Boston, Massachusetts from the practice of law in this Court, dated May 15, 2017, is vacated and the Rule to Show Cause issued on that date is discharged.

 (Found via Kimberly Robinson on Twitter.)

On yesterday's installment of their podcast, Dan and Ian discussed attorney discipline orders, which Dan called "just the first pages of a story." This one sounds like it might be quite a story.

Posted by Will Baude on May 30, 2017 at 11:15 AM in 2018 End of Term | Permalink


More on the mistaken identity case, which apparently is not the first time something like that happened: https://apnews.com/ec922b76d6ff4b479761bad5cbb92352

Posted by: Joe | May 31, 2017 1:29:20 PM

Because Section 2(c) provides that "the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order." And by virtue of Section 14, the "effective date" of the order was March 16--a date that governs a number of the provisions, not only the travel ban.

To be sure, Trump will probably issue a new E.O. extending the date--but unless and until he does so, this case is moot on June 14.

Posted by: Marty Lederman | May 31, 2017 12:36:39 PM

Why is that?

Posted by: Will Baude | May 30, 2017 4:25:18 PM

The "travel ban" case becomes moot in two weeks, unless Trump issues another executive order extending the (still-not-operational) ban beyond June 14.

Posted by: Marty Lederman | May 30, 2017 4:18:56 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.