Dan Epps
👤 PersonAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
Right. Well, it's funny because the knock some of us used to make on the shadow docket would be like, well, you just get results and no reasoning. And now you get neither result, no reasoning.
Right. Well, it's funny because the knock some of us used to make on the shadow docket would be like, well, you just get results and no reasoning. And now you get neither result, no reasoning.
So then... So they would grant for effectively the reasons that Judge Katsos would.
So then... So they would grant for effectively the reasons that Judge Katsos would.
So it's great. They did nothing and it was 5-4. Well, they can't even do nothing. Yeah. Doing nothing for no reasons, 5-4.
So it's great. They did nothing and it was 5-4. Well, they can't even do nothing. Yeah. Doing nothing for no reasons, 5-4.
Yes, they could have. I mean, sometimes when you hold something in advance, you just hold it in advance. You don't say you're holding it in advance. It's not like you're not ordering anyone to do anything. Yeah, although I do think, I mean, it's the two things. I take it some of these people wanted it right, and that's awkward. And I don't exactly know what the rules are around
Yes, they could have. I mean, sometimes when you hold something in advance, you just hold it in advance. You don't say you're holding it in advance. It's not like you're not ordering anyone to do anything. Yeah, although I do think, I mean, it's the two things. I take it some of these people wanted it right, and that's awkward. And I don't exactly know what the rules are around
dissenting from things that haven't happened but i take it nobody could stop gorsuch and alito from dissenting yeah dissenting from the refusal to issue a decision right or statement and then of course justice gorsuch would make it seem like shenanigans were happening so it's it's awkward yeah also i think this is supposed to i mean this is so i think the holding the advance is supposed to do two things it's supposed to send a message to the lower courts right this is not necessarily okay you should think pretty carefully whether you want to grant a preliminary injunction here
dissenting from things that haven't happened but i take it nobody could stop gorsuch and alito from dissenting yeah dissenting from the refusal to issue a decision right or statement and then of course justice gorsuch would make it seem like shenanigans were happening so it's it's awkward yeah also i think this is supposed to i mean this is so i think the holding the advance is supposed to do two things it's supposed to send a message to the lower courts right this is not necessarily okay you should think pretty carefully whether you want to grant a preliminary injunction here
Because there's at least some implication that the reason the court gives for not doing anything is because it's going to expire anyway, which suggests that if it's not going to expire, we might do something. And I think it means just procedurally, the court is now poised to act. Without requiring further filings or just with requiring minimal further filings? I think possibly no further filings.
Because there's at least some implication that the reason the court gives for not doing anything is because it's going to expire anyway, which suggests that if it's not going to expire, we might do something. And I think it means just procedurally, the court is now poised to act. Without requiring further filings or just with requiring minimal further filings? I think possibly no further filings.
I think if the district court today or tomorrow issues a preliminary injunction, and the preliminary injunction hearings today, that's my understanding, I think the court could immediately stay it if it wants to. They can wait for the SG to ask them to stay it, but I think they could just act. So they need to be formally notified about what's going on. I mean, I don't know if they do.
I think if the district court today or tomorrow issues a preliminary injunction, and the preliminary injunction hearings today, that's my understanding, I think the court could immediately stay it if it wants to. They can wait for the SG to ask them to stay it, but I think they could just act. So they need to be formally notified about what's going on. I mean, I don't know if they do.
I assume there will be a letter, but I'm not even sure it's necessary. They can take judicial notice of another court's order, I think.
I assume there will be a letter, but I'm not even sure it's necessary. They can take judicial notice of another court's order, I think.