And Don't Call It Loper

The name of the company is Loper Bright Enterprises.

One of my pet peeves concerns the naming of Supreme Court cases. Noel Canning v. NRLB, for example, cannot be abbreviated as Canning. There is a canning and bottling company in Washington named "Noel Canning."

Likewise, I've already seen some people refer to the Chevron case as just Loper. No, that does not work. The name of the company is "Loper Bright Enterprises." I would accept "Loper Bright" for short.

Still, I regret the case was not called Relentless. Relentless has 11 characters, while Loper Bright has 12 characters. Over the lifetime of this precedent, think of how many additional characters will be wasted!

And don't call me Shirley.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Loper has only 5 characters, and people are going to call it that anyway.

[Kleppe]

I thought Relentless would have been better, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Because it has 11 letters?

[Tim B]

That's a quite impressive amount of "old man yells at cloud" energy.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Another patron who loves wasting time pointing out how Josh wasted his time creating a post that you had to read to know it was wasting your time too.

[Vryedni]

You do know this exercise is disgruntled cloud screamers all the way down, right?

[tkamenick]

"Still, I regret the case was not called Relentless. Relentless has 11 characters, while Loper Bright has 12 characters."

That just reminds me. When I'm citing cases for very basic principles (e.g., summary judgment standards), I've made it a habit to pick the shortest names possible (e.g., Smith v. Jones) to save in my word count for appellate briefs.

[Letters_Triumverate]

The "don't call me Shirley" line is a pun based on people using "surely" to preface a statement. It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the shorthand naming of "Loper".

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do they decide which case takes the lead in a situation like this? Just the lowest docket numbers? It seems like Relentless would, ceteris paribus, have been a better choice for the lead opinion, since Justice Jackson wasn't recused.