Pseudonymity in Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Military Vaccine Mandate?

I blogged yesterday about Chief Judge Beryl Howell (D.D.C.) saying "no" to this, but the issue is coming back with the same plaintiff to the District of Maryland (U.S. Army ROTC ECP Cadet Doe v. Biden, No. 1:22-cv-00691-RDB).

Plaintiff's lawyer tells me that he had tried to recall his D.D.C. filing (and filed in D. Md.) before receiving a decision on the pseudonymity question; "in the interim we decided we'd rather take it to the Fourth Circuit on appeal." (The Maryland connection is that plaintiff is a Maryland resident.) It will be interesting to see what Judge Richard Bennett (D. Md.) will decide here; I don't think he is bound by Chief Judge Howell's decision, but he certainly may consider it.

Comments

[santamonica811]

Eugene,
Since there are now a lot of readers/posters here who never went to law school; I think it would be an interesting OP for one of you Commentators to write about, generally-speaking, when a court is precluded from (re)considering a party's argument, and when a court may do so. Res judicata, collateral estoppel, etc..

It's something I had never even thought about before law school, and I always found it an interesting (and sometimes esoteric) slice of the law.