The Supremes have called for a response from the SG to the cert petition in Rodriguez v. United States, No. 08-1465. (Yes, that Rodriguez.)

7 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Supremes call for response in Rodriguez v. United States”

  1. Anonymous says:

    What does this mean in terms of odds of the Court granting? How often do they require the SG to respond? And what percentage of those cases lead to grants?

  2. Anonymous says:

    The SG will say- jurisdiction doesn't exist- no relief granted- even if you are not parsimonious with your definition.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The government won, what does relief being granted have to do with anything?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Anon 10:50,
    You have a bright future in military practice.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Anon 09:36:

    The Court requires the government (and other respondents) to respond relatively frequently; any single Justice can call for a response.

    According to one recent study (hyperlink below; see p.250), when the Court calls for a response the chance of a paid petition (like Rodriguez) being granted increases roughly four-fold, from 4.2% to 16.9%.

    http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/16-2/01-WACHTELL.pdf

  6. Anonymous says:

    Considering the CAAF's decision was not compelled by Bowles, and Bowles was a split decision to begin with, it's not hard to envision reversal here.

    Equitable tolling has been around for a pretty long time, guys, and it survives Bowles v. Russell. See, e.g., Baker v. Cain, 2008 WL 3243993, at *2 (5th Cir. 2008) ("[T]his court has explicitly rejected rejected the State's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Bowles v. Russell should change our analysis… equitable tolling remains available in this circuit[.]"

  7. Anonymous says:

    The footnote to the very sentence Anon 1716 quoted from Baker v. Cain seems to disagree with him. Baker v. Cain seems to apply only to the statute of limitations in AEDPA (which the Supreme Court has ruled is a non-jurisdictional affirmative offense) and not to "statutory jurisdictional requirements, such as the time for filing a notice of appeal."

    "In Bowles, the Court held that courts were prohibited from creating equitable exceptions to statutory jurisdictional requirements, such as the time for filing a notice of appeal." Baker v. Cain, 2008 WL 3243993, at *2 n.10 (5th Cir. 2008).