The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Congratulations to Brady Kelly, the Chief Justice of FantasySCOTUS OT 2022
The October 2022 Term of FantasySCOTUS has come to a close. This term was one a bit of a letdown after last term, but still packed some punch. And FantasySCOTUS did quite well. In the aggregate, our crowd predicted 75% of the cases accurately, down from 81% last term.
This year, the Chief Justice of the league was Brady Kelly. Players receive ten points for each correct prediction of a Justice's vote. We recorded 56 merits cases (DIGs do not count). A perfect score would have been 5,600 points. Brady scored 4,650 points. Bill Corteal, who was the champion last year, was the runner-up with 4,250 points.
Brady lives in the District of Columbia and works in analytics consulting, but not in politics, government, or law. In fact he has no legal training or background whatsoever. Brady tells me that he enjoys problem-solving, whatever the context.
Brady's first exposure to Supreme Court cases was reading ones with a direct impact on his life - especially United States v. Windsor (2013). From there he developed an interest in appellate law and the Supreme Court. Brady first begin to predict case outcomes after hearing about FantasySCOTUS in 2015. But, he explains, after predicting a few cases, life got in the way, and he took a pause. The October 2022 term was his first time reading more than a handful of the cases in a given year, and he really enjoyed the process and the competition.
I asked Brady how he goes about predicting cases. He said the first thing he always does is read the decision below. And if he still doesn't fully understand the issues, he reads the petitioner and respondent briefs too. From there, he really tries to focus on what he personally thinks the right interpretation of the law is, focusing squarely on the text and on precedent. Brady admitted that he is certainly not qualified to have an opinion on these questions, but finds it most helpful to start there rather than as an outside observer just predicting what other people will think. Brady acknowledged that he does not always expect his interpretation to be the majority opinion, just that he finds it a helpful framework to start with. Only then does he try to predict which justices he'll end up agreeing vs. disagreeing with. Once he has formed a tentative opinion, he'll listen to the oral arguments and change predicted votes around as needed.
I asked Brady what case gave him the most difficulty. He responded, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. He felt pretty confident in predicting a 7-2 majority that FNHRA could theoretically be enforced through section 1983, but there were still multiple layers of questions after that point. Brady missed this case, when other top players got it right. Brady explained that he missed the implicit-preclusion path question. Brady told me that having so many separate questions, each of which could change the case's outcome, was stressful.
Another challenging case for Brady was Jones v Hendrix. On that one, his predictions were right. But Brady said it was very difficult - as a certified non-lawyer - to try to understand federal Habeas Corpus law. He is still not sure he understands it. (Join the club).
Brady really enjoys listening to the oral arguments on Oyez, especially when someone just hits it out of the park. He told me he personally thought the best two examples this term were Solicitor General Prelogar in Groff v. DeJoy and Colleen Roh Sinzdak in Amgen v. Sanofi.
Brady also has a favorite writer: Justice Kagan, with Justice Barrett in second place, even though he might not agree with Barrett as often as he agrees with Kagan. If the two of them are on the same side (e.g. the dissent in Mallory, the dissent in Bittner, or the concurrence-in-judgment in Abitron Austria), he is guaranteed to end up agreeing with them.
Congratulations Brady, and to all the participants in the competition. We will launch next term's competition on the first Monday in October.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Readers, take note.
A man whose apparent specialty is Supreme Court gossip, who obsesses over perceived slights from SCOTUS reporters and analysts, who nurses bizarre resentments over the Chief Justice, who desperately seeks acknowledgment and acceptance by a legal elite establishment he nonetheless dismisses as unworthy of his participation, who brags about his writing skill while writing horribly, who has never practiced as an attorney a single day in his life, and who apparently has the time and interest to interview a hobbyist in a Supreme Court fantasy league -
This man, this slob of a pathetic loser teaching at a scam law school in Texas, has views about the proper composition of the bar exam, and believes he has something worthwhile to say about how attorneys - mind you, attorneys who will go on to actually practice, not park their asses in glorified adjunct positions within the law school Ponzi scheme - should be evaluated.
This is uncalled for.
If you don't think what the man writes is worth reading, you don't have to read it. If you think he is factually wrong and/or intellectually obtuse, you are free to call him on it.
But personal attacks like this are uncalled for.
"personal attacks like this"
Simon always personally attacks. Just a whiny little bi*ch.
Not always. I regularly post lengthy and thoughtful comments devoid of personal attacks.
When I engage in invective and slander, I do so only because a more thoughtful response would clearly be a waste of time. As it very often is, given the quality of the commentariat here.
Simon is the Volokh Conspiracy’s whiny little bitch.
The Volokh Conspiracy is modern legal academia’s whiny little bitch.
The big difference is that Simon is not a bigot.
People don't like Ilya but I don't recall the attacks against him generally being as venomous.
I reserve the right to comment however I like, fuckface.
"scam law school in Texas"
80% first time pass rate in 2022, slightly above the state average. Not even the worse in Texas.
Not fabulous but acceptable.
If South Texas College of Law is “acceptable” to you, I think you e revealed all we need to know.
Look at pass rates. 80% is average or even above average in most states.
I doubt even an underachieving, disaffected lawyer in backwater Ohio would advise his child to attend South Texas College of Law Houston.
If 4/5ths of its graduates pass the bar exam on the first time, it's a good school by my metrics. I believe that the UMass School of Law has a 43% passage rate, or did the last time I checked.
And while I'd prefer to see attorneys licensed by area of practice (like teachers are), reality is that we need attorneys defending drunk drivers and searching property deeds. Not everyone can be a SCOTUS justice, and there is no lack of honor in being an honest local lawyer.
A majority of law students pass the bar on their first try, even when they graduate from some of the worst law schools in the country.
Anyway, it's an arbitrarily cherrypicked stat. Why bar passage rates? Most law schools don't teach to the bar exam. Law school is a trade school. The point isn't to get onto the bar, it's to get a job as an attorney, ideally one that pays well enough to pay off debt incurred to go to the law school.
Bar passage rates say less about the quality of a law school than they do about the kinds of students they attract and graduate - and the ability of those law students to get their bar prep courses covered.
"Brady lives in the District of Columbia and works in analytics consulting, but not in politics, government, or law. In fact he has no legal training or background whatsoever."
The person with no legal training or background does a better job of understanding what the law is (i.e. how SCOTUS will rule) than all of the professionals....
In fairness, this happens in my field (education) as well -- there are some truly great professors with absolutely no background in education...
It didn’t even occur to me that there could be a dumb take on this topic, but once again Dr. Ed manages to find the absolute stupidest one possible.
Why not try to add substance to your comments rather than just vitriol?
Here's the thing. I think practitioners, especially in their advice to clients, predict with great accuracy what SCOTUS is going to do. Not that they are never wrong, but they do a very good job.
But I suspect a lot of those specialists aren't going to be participating in an Fantasy pool, and meanwhile the cadre of regular commentators who talk in public about SCOTUS often have agendas and deliberately make phony "predictions" to further that agenda. So that skews the public discourse.
At any rate, I actually like Blackman's post here. He tried to get to know this guy and figure out what he was doing.
I've been critical of Josh's posts in the past, but also appreciate his energy and enthusiasm. This fantasy league is a good example of the latter. I could see this being modified into an excellent teaching tool for folks who will be specializing in appellate work or SCOTUS advocacy. This is a valuable skill for lawyers.
Players receive ten points for each correct prediction of a Justice's vote. We recorded 56 merits cases (DIGs do not count). A perfect score would have been 5,600 points.
If players receive 10 points for each correct prediction of a Justice's vote, with 56 merits cases and 9 Justices, wouldn't a perfect score be 5,040 points (9*10*56) and not 5,600 points, or am I missing something?
Maybe there was also 10 points for the overall outcome? So in a 5-4 decision, if you only got one of the 5 wrong you would lose 20 points (the justice and what the majority held) but only 10 points if you only got one of the 4 wrong.
I have to agree with Dilan Esper that this is a likable post; not as much about Blackman himself as usual. "(Join the club)" actually sounds self deprecating.
I should just have Googled it.
https://fantasyscotus.net/rules/