Supreme Court and the law of unintended consequences?
July 29, 2016 1:01 PM Subscribe
The Republican-controlled Senate declines to consider adding a ninth justice. In the meantime, an eight justice Supreme Court cannot reverse decisions coming up from the Appeals Courts. Two of those decisions have slapped down state-level voting restrictions passed by Republican legislatures. Where else should we expect to see the Senate hoist on its own petard?
Appeals Courts have recently invalidated laws restricting voting in Texas and North Carolina. Those decisions will stand because there's no chance of reversal with an eight justice Supreme Court. What other, similar cases are bubbling up around the country that might also be reversed?
Are any of these cases being handled pro bono by the big firms? Or is this the sort of plaintiff's action that has to be funded by non-profits of various sorts?
Appeals Courts have recently invalidated laws restricting voting in Texas and North Carolina. Those decisions will stand because there's no chance of reversal with an eight justice Supreme Court. What other, similar cases are bubbling up around the country that might also be reversed?
Are any of these cases being handled pro bono by the big firms? Or is this the sort of plaintiff's action that has to be funded by non-profits of various sorts?
Just FYI, an eight-justice court certainly can reverse appellate court decisions--just not if they happen to split 4-4.
posted by praemunire at 1:08 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 1:08 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
Best answer: This isn't being hoisted on their petard, though, is it?
The senate feels that Obama's nominee would vote against them in cases that are fairly partisan. If Obama's nominee becomes confirmed, they lose these cases and may not be able to re litigate. If they are returned to a lower court, theoretically a nine-justice supreme court with a Trump justice could return to the case later. Their actions therefore seem quite logical to me.
posted by selfnoise at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
The senate feels that Obama's nominee would vote against them in cases that are fairly partisan. If Obama's nominee becomes confirmed, they lose these cases and may not be able to re litigate. If they are returned to a lower court, theoretically a nine-justice supreme court with a Trump justice could return to the case later. Their actions therefore seem quite logical to me.
posted by selfnoise at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
I had been thinking of arguing something dollar to self noise, but then realized that it's probably not true. If I'm not mistaken, there are time limits on filing appeals. So of they don't file an appeal now, they can't just do so later. Of course another person could file a similar suit at some other time, but since the appeals court precedent would he standing the judge would have to decide based on that. I imagine it would be hard to find a case similar enough that it would result in overturning an outcome, but different enough that there would be new legal issues to decide (and thus grounds for appeal).
Of course this assumes time limits on appeals. Maybe a lawyer could confirm that these exist?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:39 PM on July 29, 2016
Of course this assumes time limits on appeals. Maybe a lawyer could confirm that these exist?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:39 PM on July 29, 2016
If only I had a penguin..., that's a typical way that ideologically-driven Supreme Court litigation works. You let lower court rulings stand sometimes and choose your time to seek certiorari at the Supreme Court. Yes, it means some people "lose" in the meantime, but this kind of litigation is all about the long game.
From the other side ideologically, this was the position opponents of Proposition 8 took in Hollingsworth v. Perry, asking that the Supreme Court not review the 9th Circuit ruling. This would mean that the ruling only applied directly to the 9th Circuit, but help insulate from the possibility of its being overturned by the Supreme Court (in the end, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, ruled the proponents of gay marriage lacked standing, returned it to the 9th circuit with orders to vacate on that basis, leaving the proponents victory in trial court in force, but leaving them without the appellate and Supreme Court rulings they might have hope for.)
You wait for another case to come along...
posted by Jahaza at 2:37 PM on July 30, 2016
From the other side ideologically, this was the position opponents of Proposition 8 took in Hollingsworth v. Perry, asking that the Supreme Court not review the 9th Circuit ruling. This would mean that the ruling only applied directly to the 9th Circuit, but help insulate from the possibility of its being overturned by the Supreme Court (in the end, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, ruled the proponents of gay marriage lacked standing, returned it to the 9th circuit with orders to vacate on that basis, leaving the proponents victory in trial court in force, but leaving them without the appellate and Supreme Court rulings they might have hope for.)
You wait for another case to come along...
posted by Jahaza at 2:37 PM on July 30, 2016
IANACL but I believe in the current situation appeals court decisions that SCOTUS 4-4s on are only applicable as new jurisprudence in that particular district.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2016
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2016
No 9th justice is far better for Republicans than Merrick Garland as the 9th justice. If Clinton is elected and the Republicans hold the Senate that seat might never get filled.
posted by MattD at 5:00 PM on July 30, 2016
posted by MattD at 5:00 PM on July 30, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]