Whatever happened to the rule of 3?
pkarlan at stanford.edu
Mon Jun 7 14:46:25 PDT 2004
At 02:14 PM 6/7/2004 -0700, Eastman, John wrote:
>An interesting cert denial today in the Colorado reapportionment
>case. The Chief, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented from the
>denial of cert. If I recall correctly, Justices Kennedy and O Connor (and
>others) are big proponents of the Rule of 3. IS the rule dead?
The "rule of 3" -- or at least the version I know anything about -- allowed
three justices to "hold" a case pending the outcome of another case. E.g.,
a week after the Court decided Tennessee v. Lane, it GVR'd (granted,
vacated, and remanded) a case called Columbia River Correctional Fac. v.
Phiffer in light of Lane. Looking at the docket sheet in Phiffer, it's
pretty clear that the case was held for Lane.
There's nothing pending right now off of which Salazar clearly should be
held. It's conceivable, of course, that if the Court notes in the Texas
re-redistricting cases, a subsequent decision might have had some bearing
on Salazer, but it's neither certain the Court will note there nor that the
legal issues are sufficiently similar to warrant a hold.
The other 3 justice practice of which I'm aware is "join 3," which was a
recommendation some justices' clerks used to make about certs -- i.e., "if
there are three other justices who want to take this case, you ought to
vote with them."
Pamela S. Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
karlan at stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof