Fall 2023 arguments

Link here, then click on the chosen case. Login required.

Thank you again for a great round of arguments and a great semester.

Cert grant in mifepristone case

Order list here. Note that the Court granted petitions from the FDA and the drug manufacturers on the issues on which they lost--standing and the challenge to the later changes to mifepristone approval. It denied a cross petition from the plaintiffs on the issues on which they lost--challenge to the original 2000 approval of the drug. This suggests that standing, especially traceability, will be the real focus of the argument.

The Court allotted one hour of argument time for the consolidated arguments. Post-COVID, Court shifted the way it conducts arguments. Each side gets some time (usually 15-20 minutes, probably 30 minutes in this case) for a regular argument. That is followed by a round of serial questioning from each Justice, in order of seniority. And that has no time limit, often it is less about questioning than about the Justices making arguments, and can go on for awhile. So do not be surprised if these arguments surpass three hours.

Oral Arguments (Updated and moved to top)

 Reminder that arguments are coming up next Tuesday, December 12. We will begin promptly at 9:30, so you should be there well before then.

Updated Schedule of Arguments and Standing Order on Procedure.

If you have dietary needs and have not notified me, please do so.

Congressional Control papers due at the beginning of arguments. All other graded papers are available for pick-up outside my office.

Acheson decided

SCOTUS on Tuesday decided Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, one of our argument cases. The Court dismissed the case as moot and vacated the lower-court judgment; the opinion is short (3+ pages). Of note are the concurrences--Justice Thomas argues that "testers" lack standing. Justice Jackson questions how routinely (if not automatically) the Court vacates lower-court judgments when cases become moot on appeal; she makes some interesting points about why lower-court decisions should survive even if mootness prohibits appeal.