The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari on the House of Representative's Obamacare Cert Petition

After Bethune-Hill, there were not four votes to review the House's petition

This morning, the Supreme Court granted California's petition (19-840), as well as Texas's cross-petition (19-1019).

However, the Court did not grant the House of Representative's petition (19-841).Why? Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections killed legislative standing--especially where only a single House brings the suit. There were not even four votes to grant the House's petition.

The House will likely request argument time as an amicus curiae. The podium will already be quite crowded. California, the Solicitor General, and Texas will get argument time. The private plaintiffs from Texas may also request argument time. And the Court limited the case to a single hour. I think it is unlikely that the House gets time. Don Verrilli no doubt would have loved another round to defend Obamacare before the Supreme Court.

Comments

[Nonstopdrivel]

Would that be the same Don Verrilli who studied m argued on behalf of Intel in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma?

[Nonstopdrivel]

Would that be the same Don Verrilli who argued on behalf of Intel in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma?

[The Turtle Dove]

Just wiseacring off the top of the head: Say Jim is suing Pres. Trump because Pres. Trump shot Jim's dog on Fifth Avenue. The relief sought is an injunction keeping him from carrying a gun on Fifth Avenue.

The District Court of Franklin allows Judy to join the suit, because she owns a doq-walking business based in Washington Square. The Forty-ninth Circuit then holds that no sitting President can ever be sued for anything because "Duuude, like his magical powers are, you know, a sign of divine favor." Jim thinks this to be correct, due to a neurochemical reaction prompted by the dye in his red baseball cap. Judy, however, files a cert petition. The BIO from 1600 consists of a decapitated and exsanguinated chicken. Why doesn't cert run against the 49th Circuit on motion from a joined party without article III standing but whose relief is not a predicate of the cert QP? The case has parties with sufficient standing to generate focused and concrete adversity, and the holding in the case will implicate Judy's interests.

Again, top of the head, likely wrong, don't rely.

[The Turtle Dove]

Tweak: say Judy runs a cat-walking business, and Trump professes a huge love for cats. (Otherwise, too close to her having proper standing.)