The Court can summarily affirm at the JS stage with the votes of just five justices, but it only takes four votes to note probable jurisdiction. So if there are five who want to summarily affirm and four who want to note, my understanding is that one or more of the five usually defer to the four who want to note. But the crucial point is that it takes a majority to summarily affirm, unlike the four it takes for an equally divided Court.
As to whether they could summarily affirm after argument, I suppose they could, but I don't think their authority to do so in a direct appeal case would be any greater or less than the authority they would have in a case that was before the Court on cert. I guess a summary affirmance after argument (with five votes) might occur for the same reasons as a dismissal of the writ as improvidently granted occurs in a cert. case. But I still think a 4-4 affirmance by an equally divided Court would have the same precedential effect in a direct-appeal case as in a cert. case.
====================================
Samuel R. Bagenstos
Professor of Law
Washington University School of Law
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-935-9097
Personal Web Page: http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html
Disability Law Blog: http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> 1/18/2006 8:20 AM >>>
Sam,
Is it in the Supreme Court's rules somewhere that a summary affirmance at the JS stage takes six Justices? If that is correct, it would explain why the case would be set for argument even if the 5 in the McConnell majority wanted to summarily affirm.
Also, and pardon my ignorance of Supreme Court practice, is a summary affirmance not possible after argument in a case on direct appeal, or some kind of analogous decision to deny jurisdiction?
Rick
srbagenstos@wulaw.wustl.edu wrote: I'm not sure why the form of jurisdiction -- cert or appeal -- should matter for these purposes. Once the Court grants cert., the case is in front of it. A 4-4 affirmance makes no law, not because the case is there on cert. (after all, the Court doesn't dismiss the writ), but because there's no majority (unlike a summary affirmance at the JS stage in a direct appeal, in which at least six justices must ordinarily vote to affirm). Or that's what @ would have thought.-----Original Message-----From: Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>Subj: Re: WRTL oral argumentDate: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:19 pmSize: 4KTo: Joseph Birkenstock <JMB@capdale.com>cc: election-law <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> This doesn't directly respond to Joe's question, for which I don't know the answer. But I have heard the suggestion that the Court could act after Justice O'Connor leaves by sticking with the 4-4 vote and not scheduling reargument. A 4-4 split on appe!
al (as opposed to cert) would affirm the judgment below by an equally divided Court, with the effect that the result (but not necessarily the reasoning) of the lower court stands. Joseph Birkenstock wrote: Message Procedural question: in discussing WRtL this morning I've been told that if the Court winds up 4-4 on either issue, re-argument would not bemandatory but instead would only be available on a motion - either from one of the parties or sua sponte - that would require 5 votes to grant.In many other descriptions of the case that mention re-argument, however, the prospect of re-argument is phrased more automatically - either that a re-argument would berequired or that re-argument would otherwise just follow naturally from a 4-4 split. Since I know exactly *nothing* about Supreme Court procedure, Ihave no idea who's right- or even whether I'm just reading too much intowhat I've read on this -but it seems to methat the processon obtaining a re-argument has the pot!
ential to be apretty importanttwist. So,is a motion required!
for re-
argument (and are five votes required to grant such a motion)? And if so, how does this play out in practice? If Alito, for example,upon getting sworn in were tomakehis ownsua sponte requestfor re-argument, would what's left of the McConnell majority be able to vote against granting that motion or as a matter of comity and institutional cooperation, would the McConnell justices be expected to go along with such a request? Anyone know of any precedents for this situation? ________________________________ Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 862-7836 *also admitted to practice in CA
-- Rick HasenWilliam H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of LawLoyola Law School919 Albany StreetLos Angeles, CA 90015-1211(213)736-1466(213)380-3769 - faxrick.hasen@lls.eduhttp://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org