Texas Seeks Extension to Respond to Cert Petition in Texas v. United States, Trying to Run Out the Clock?
Photo courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court website
Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSBlog reports that the Texas Attorney General has sought a 30 day extension to January 20, 2016 to respond to the U.S. government’s petition for certiorari in Texas v. United States. “Delay has the potential to slow down a case that U.S. officials very much want decided during the Court’s current Term.” If the case is not heard not heard this Term, it is possible that the case will not be decided — and deferred action program may not go into effect — before the end of President Obama’s presidency.
Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller wrote to the Court seeking an extension to file the states’ response on January 20, thirty days after it is currently due. Keller cited a long list of other legal tasks faced by lawyers in the case.
A Justice Department spokesman said “we intend to oppose Texas’s request for a full 30-day extension,” adding that the government believes the case “should be considered expeditiously.”
As Denniston explains the significance of the extension request,
“Normally, if the Court has not acted by the end of January to grant review of a case, its chances of being briefed, argued, and decided in that Term are significantly diminished. If Texas is granted the extension, that would make it difficult for the Court to get the remaining filings in hand and meet the usual timeline for a case to be heard in April — usually, the last month for oral arguments.
Even if the request is granted, the government has a number of options it could attempt to try to ensure that the case gets moved along to a decision before the Term ends, likely in late June. It could ask the Court to put the case on an expedited schedule, before it is granted and after. And it could encourage those who support its side to rush their filings of amicus briefs.
Moreover, if the Court did agree to hear the case, and deemed it sufficiently important to speed up consideration, it could schedule oral argument after April, although it does not like to do so.
Normally, a request for more time to answer a new case is granted routinely by the Court’s Clerk, but if it is opposed — as is the case this time — the opposing party can ask that a Justice or the full Court act on the plea. The Court has complete discretion as to how it handles such matters.
If the case were not granted and decided by the Court in the current Term, it would go over until the next Term, which begins in October 2016, and might not be decided before a new president, elected in November 2016, takes office in January 2017.
. . . .
A new president, if opposed to the policy, would have the option of undoing it by simply ordering aides to withdraw the guidelines announced last November on how the delayed deportation plan was to work.”
Here is the Associated Press report on the importance of timing in the Court’s review of Texas v. United States.
KJ