• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Labor Secretary Nomination Moves to Full Senate »

May 17, 2013



It sounds like the D.C. Court of Appeals is a lot more willing to issue an opinion that is not strictly needed under the facts - i.e. a decision that do no benefit to the winning party - than are our Federal courts. The Batson line of cases on racial impropriety in jury selection could never have been decided without direct, material evidence of its effect on the verdicts before the Court.

In current times, there's a lot of talk about whether Standing rules are too strict, so as to let injustice rule for want of anyone qualified to complain, or too lenient, so as to give an "activist" court dictatorial opportunities.

It's good to be reminded of the benefits in a ruling on what the law is, where it can serve as a useful guide to all going forward, even without a traditionally sufficient "case or controversy" at bar.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad