,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Update in the mystery grand jury matter: Both sides now agree that the foreign country-owned company’s supplemental brief at #SCOTUS can be filed in unredacted form. (So, I’d imagine that means we’ll be able to read it. Soon? I’m checking.) 
Recall that last Friday, we learned, definitively from a DC Circuit filing and the district court docket who the lawyers are: It's Alston & Bird for the foreign country-owned company and lawyers with the special counsel's office. Thread:
Cross-referencing the district court, DC Circuit, and SCOTUS dockets, it seems likely that the supplemental brief at #SCOTUS relates to a series of rulings — from the dist ct on 1/15 & 1/24 & the DC Cir on 1/29 — that appear to relate to accrual and enforceability of fines.
Here's a thread on how I got down that rabbit hole:
If you want to dig more:
Dist Ct docket (through 1/31): dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/file…
DC Circuit docket (through today): documentcloud.org/documents/5722…
SCOTUS docket (online): supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…
Dist Ct docket (through 1/31): dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/file…
DC Circuit docket (through today): documentcloud.org/documents/5722…
SCOTUS docket (online): supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…
Note: I don't think we'll learn a ton from the supplemental brief, other than likely confirming (or disproving) my theory on what the DC Cir was doing and what the supplemental brief is about, b/c the gov't says no sealed material will be revealed by filing an unredacted version.
Lol. So, we learned at least one thing. The supplemental brief was actually filed on Jan. 17. Here it is: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1… (I'm going through it now.)
The main purpose of the supplemental brief by the foreign country-owned company at #SCOTUS was to include information about the DC Circuit's opinion on the issue — which came out a few days *after* the company filed its cert petition.
The DC Circuit initially had ruled in December w/ just a judgment — upholding the dist ct contempt order. The company went to SCOTUS at that point, since the judgment resolved the issue, contained some reasoning, and was going to go into effect. The opinion followed in January.
