For those who are worried about Trump slow-walking an appeal to #SCOTUS if the D.C. Circuit rules against him on immunity, the court of appeals can preempt that by doing what the Colorado Supreme Court did—a stay that expires unless Trump seeks certiorari within n (say, 14) days.
The way #SCOTUS timing works, the petitioner really loses control once they file their petition. From that point on, the respondent can both file a response quickly, and then waive the waiting period for having the case go to Conference. The key is if he's forced to file quickly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In fact, since Does 1–3 v. Mills, Barrett has publicly voted to grant or vacate *14* stays in cases in which at least one Justice publicly dissented.
Of the 8 Josh … neglects, 7 came from *other* circuits; the 8th stayed a decision that a *moderate* Fifth Circuit panel hadn’t.
In other words, the remarkable pattern that Josh purports to divine from the selective subset of orders on which he focuses only exists *because* he is ignoring virtually all of the other orders that disprove the existence of such a pattern.
The 14:
1. Crow 2. NFIB 3. Ohio v. DOL 4. Milligan 5. Caster 6. Navy SEALs 7. American Rivers 8. NetChoice 9. Ardoin 10. Hamm v. Smith 11. AZ v. Mayorkas* 12. Danco 13. FDA 14. Vanderstok
* — Josh accounts for this by asserting that it doesn’t count if the Court granted cert.
1. To mark today's publication day for "The Shadow Docket," I wanted to write a #thread not about the book, but about gratitude—to *everyone* who helped to make this day a reality, and to whom I am so deeply and profoundly grateful.
Here goes:
2. At the top of the list of people without whom there wouldn't be a book are my fantastic agent, @AliaHanna, and my amazing editor, @emmafberry.
From the beginning, both Alia and Emma understood not just what I hoped to accomplish in the book, but how to make it happen.
3. I'm also grateful to my sister-in-law, @doree, who in addition to being a wonderful writer of her own and the person who introduced me to Alia, has also been an incredibly patient correspondent and soother of nerves all the way through this process.
1. We’re going to disagree re whether specific conduct by individual #SCOTUS Justices crosses the relevant ethical lines; &
2. Institutional accountability requires there to *be* ethical lines, which shouldn’t be up to individual Justices to self-police.
We spend so much energy on (1) that we’re missing why (2) is important: If there was public faith that the Justices were being held to meaningful standards by anyone *other than* the press, there’d be less sensationalism around press reports that may or may not reveal misconduct.
I’ll have a lot more to say about this in Monday’s “One First.” I just think there’s a lot of talking past each other where we’re missing the point on which there ought to be common ground:
An independent judiciary does not mean—and has never meant—an unaccountable judiciary.
First (but not last) decision in an argued case is in MOAC Mall Holdings (bankruptcy). Justice Jackson for a unanimous Court holds that section 363(m) is *not* jurisdictional:
(This is not a big case outside of bankruptcy law.)
At least one more to go.
A good indicator of why the Court is so far behind in getting rulings out in argued cases: MOAC was argued on December 5, and yet a 15-page, unanimous opinion with no separate concurrences took over four months to get out.