On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered whether it’s possible to run out of time to challenge a judgment that never should have been issued. 

The justices did not have a lot to say on Tuesday morning when they heard from the lawyers in The Hain Celestial Group v Palmquist, as the entire argument occupied less than 45 minutes. The consistent tone of the justices’ comments suggests that the justices will affirm the decision of the lower court.

Continue Reading

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court is meeting in conference this Friday for the first time in three weeks. A lot of cases have built up during that time – 263 to be precise, almost twice as many cases as were at the last October conference. Only one of those cases has been relisted for the first time, though: Watson v. Republican National Committee, which asks the justices to decide what “election day” (or “the day for the election”) means.

Monday’s argument in Hencely v Fluor Corporation revealed a bench broadly skeptical of the idea that military contractors have absolute immunity for negligent mistakes they make when those mistakes occur in an active war zone. 

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Do amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs matter in Supreme Court cases? As someone who sometimes writes and signs on to amicus briefs, I often wonder if they are worth the time and effort. Nonetheless, when I have been a lawyer handling a case before the Supreme Court, I always seek amicus briefs for my side.