Monday, November 10, 2008

Denedo distributed for conference

Today the Supremes' clerk's office distributed the SG's cert petition in Denedo for conference. (Here's the link to Denedo's docket on SCOTUS's web site.) The case will be conferenced on Tuesday, 25 November -- two days before Thanksgiving. I don't know yet whether orders are expected to be issued the following day or whether we'll have to wait until 1 December to learn anything.

While the docket indicates that the cert petition and opposition were distributed, it doesn't reflect the filing of a reply to Denedo's opp. Nor is a Denedo reply up on the SG's web site. So as of now, the SG has never addressed the jurisdictional problem in the case.

Denedo made SCOTUSblog's "Petitions to Watch" list here. I know it's never wise to bet against the SG at the cert stage, but I think that the jurisdictional and ripeness problems in the case will be sufficient to result in a cert denial. But if I'm wrong, the Kabul Klipper's Golden CAAF will soon be traveling to Code 46.


Anonymous said...

So, if SCOTUS does not grant what is the government going to do? Wait for NMCCA to grant relief? Taking the defense opposition it seems like there was IAC. If NMCCA grants relief does the government wind it's way back to CAAF and say NMCCA didn't have jurisdiction and ask it to vacate? It seems like the ripeness issue was invited b CAAF. That is, CAAF is knowingly acting outside of its jurisdiction and there is no way to get it in check.

Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte said...

I think the SG would have seen any potential jurisdictional issues and if they thought it significant would have replied. Silence on the subject may signal their lack of concern.

Anonymous said...

I think it makes sense that if a court always has jurisdiction to questions its own jurisdiction, it also has jursidction to question the jurisdiction of its inferior courts. So, if SCOTUS thinks CAAF acted outside the box, they have jurisdiction to put them back in. Otherwise it's unreviewable (assuming Denedo doesn't get relief), which wouldn't make any sense. Stated another way, the issue is better viewed as whether the jurisdictional overreaching is reviewable, not whether DeNedo's individual case is. This case isn't (at least at this point) about what happens to Denedo.