So here's a boring procedural take on these petitions while you enjoy your leftovers. /1
The government says that it needs certiorari before judgment because without it, review would not take place until October Term 2019. /2 
But here's the thing: To secure review /this/ Term the petition will need to be fully briefed and submitted to the Court by mid-January. Currently, the briefs in oppositions are due on December 24, 2018. /3
That WOULD be enough time. Except respondents could obtain a 30-day extension to file their briefs in opposition by mumbling something about the press of other business and the holidays. Such extensions are very easy to obtain. /4
The Government, I suppose, could oppose an extension. Or it can argue that Respondents pushing the case to OT2019 weighs in favor of any stay motion they might present to the Court. /5
But the Clerk is very unlikely to deny a routine 30-day extension. So accepting the Government's desire to obtain review in OT2018, it seems very hard for it to do so absent Respondents playing along or the Court being willing to order an accelerated briefing schedule. /6
This move isn't new. Respondents did it in the Schuette v. BAMN case involving affirmative action, short-circuiting Petitioner's attempt to get a very quick review in #SCOTUS. /7
So either the Solicitor General is (1) trying to position the Government well for stay proceedings, which he knows is the real goal (and is alluded to in a footnote), (2) hoping Respondents will play along, or (3) needing to satisfy other Administration interests. /8
And I am not down on these petitions the way some others are. Nationwide injunctions against military policies are plausible candidates for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari before judgment. I just don't see how the timing works if Respondents are at all savvy. /Fin
But in U.S. v. Texas, the government filed a certiorari petition 11 days after the CA5 judgment. Here, two of the petitions are in cases where notices of appeal were filed on April 30 and August 27. Third case had a notice of appeal on November 16.
If I were SG, I would point to third case as justifying the 11/23 filing in all three. But even then, the order in question was entered in September and government took most of its 60 days to appeal. So the argument against an extension (to me!) gets weaker.
Also (via @JoshMBlackman!) an example (King v. Burwell) of when a petitioner opposed an extension and tried to have it preemptively referred to the Court, only to have the Court basically ignore the request (as far as we can tell). joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/1…
Apparently DOJ signaled this filing back on November 7, presumably to get CA9 to hustle on a stay decision. But it still puts getting the case heard this term on the Court's decision about a routine extension.
