There is a fascinating fight going on behind the scenes of a case about to reach the Supreme Court. The argument more or less boils down to whether a local attorney who has been with a case for a decade or an experience Supreme Court advocate fresh to the case should argue in front of the Court. They motioned for divided time but the Court said no so they have to duke it out sometime before arguments on November 3rd. The BLT has more on the case here.

Tom Goldstein (of SCOTUSblog) will most likely be arguing against whoever is chosen to represent the state.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • Change is Fun But...: I'm sad to see Justice Stevens leave the Court for a variety of reasons that have been well documented by people smarter than me. I'm also e...
  • Profile: H. Bartow Farr, III: In the past, we've profiled notable advocates and judges that were in the news. This is the first in a series of posts about the advocates w...
  • Another Addition to the Two-in-a-Month Club: Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre is scheduled to argue twice during the December sitting, a relatively uncommon feat for private pract...
  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...