« A cost reallocation approach to DP abolition | Main | Considering faith-based corrections programming »
February 8, 2007
An initial victory in Faulks
As detailed in this post, last month I helped a team of sharp young lawyers develop and file this cert petition in US v. Faulks. (The case concerns the procedures for revoking supervised release and presents Blakely issues in an extraordinary factual setting). As shown here, though the SG waived its right of response, the Supreme Court has now ordered the government to respond to the Faulks petition.
Folks with greater knowledge of SCOTUS practices tell me that this certainly does not mean that the petition will receive a grant, but it is a good sign suggesting the Justices saw something worth giving a closer look. The SG's brief in opposition (BIO) is now due on March 9, and I am very much looking forward to seeing what the BIO says.
February 8, 2007 at 06:11 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d834e20eff53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An initial victory in Faulks:
Comments
I don't know Doug -- I'm pretty confident the Faulks petition will receive a grant. ;) I was elated at seeing the docket sheet today. If nothing else, it confirms the great work our team put into the case. Hopefully this is just the beginning!
Posted by: Aaron Katz | Feb 8, 2007 7:11:53 PM
It would be more accurate to say, I think, that a direction from the Clerk to the SG to file an answer after initially waiving means that at least one Justice saw something of potential interest in the petition, not "the Justices." On the other hand, I know how you feel. In our office, receiving a copy of a letter like this is referred to as "winning a case in the Supreme Court." Of course, we also refer that way to getting a copy of the SG's letter to the Clerk requesting an extension of time to file their BIO. (Can't set your expectations too high.)
Posted by: Peter G | Feb 8, 2007 9:49:39 PM
What Peter G said. When that happened the first time in one of my cases, I was giddy. But some research showed that any of the Justices can order a response, so s/he may be a lone wolf on the issue. But still - it's better than letting the SG off the hook! Good luck.
Posted by: JDB | Feb 9, 2007 7:55:03 AM
