All the above denied.  Fry not on the list because of pending action.  But couldn’t see Easton?

5 Responses to “In the Supremes”

  1. JB says:

    SCOTUS ordered the SG to reply in Easton.  That’s gotta be a good sign. 

  2. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JB, a call for response from the SG beats the heck out of no call for response, since that dooms a cert petition (a fate that befell my cert petition in Rose today).  But the vast majority of cert petitions in which the Supremes call for a response from the SG are also denied.  See generally David C. Thompson & Melanie F. Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures:  The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of teh Solicitor General, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 237 (2009).  The Supremes call for a response in 2.2% of the cases filed in which the United States is the respondent.  But “[e]ven when the Court requests a response from the United States, it rarely grants cert.”  Id. at 259.  The grant rate in cases where the Supremes have called for the SG’s response is 3.1%.  Id.

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Thanks JB, missed that. 

  4. Zachary Spilman says:

    Despite the odds, and considering the issue in Easton, I’m beginning to regret not predicting cert when I wrote this:

    There’s a very short list of procedural or substantive criminal safeguards that are greater for civilians than for servicemembers. Double jeopardy has officially joined that list.

  5. JB says:

    Ah, good info to know.  Well, here’s hoping for the best and 3.1% is way better odds than what we had before!