Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Supreme Court adds Louisiana marriage case to January 9 conference

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The Supreme Court, in a brief update to the docket page for the Louisiana marriage case Robicheaux v. George, has noted that the case will be taken up in its next conference, on January 9.

The case is the only one involving marriage equality that is currently listed for that conference, but the Court has a few more opportunities to add the rest of the cases. The decision to list the case for conference gives the Justices the first opportunity to take up a marriage case now that the appeals courts are divided on the issue. The Court doesn’t have to grant the case, or even act at all on it, until it wants to. It takes four votes to grant review.

The Louisiana case reaches the Court in a petition for review before judgment in the appeals court. The only decision in the case so far is the district court’s: they upheld the ban. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments in the same case, also on January 9.


  • 1. franklinsewell  |  December 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    The court is also not done for the day, and online dockets from the Supreme Court are famously slow to update. The last case distribution date for the January 9 conference is December 23.

  • 2. davepCA  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Come on, Michigan…….. fingers crossed.

  • 3. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Robicheaux and DeBoer should have been distributed for the January 9 conference soon after the replies were waived in the respective petitions. The clerk seems to be ignoring the waivers and waiting for 14 days anyway – if you look at the Robicheaux docket, the respondent brief was filed Dec 2, and even though a waiver was filed the very next day, Dec 3, the clerk has waited for a full 14 days since Dec 2 (until yesterday) before distributing it for conference. If this is true, the only marriage cases to be distributed for the January 9 conference will be Robicheaux, DeBoer, and perhaps Bourke/Love.

  • 4. josejoram  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Why Michigan, in doctrinal terms?

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    It's insane how the Wisconsin and Indiana petitions were ready for conference in HOURS and yet these petitions are moving at a glacial pace. I do hope you are wrong though about the Louisiana case being the only one before the judges, it's such an unlikely venue towards equality, given the level of scrutiny it has received.

  • 6. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Why isn't DeBoer listed yet ?? That's crazy and worrying to say the least ! I do hope it is listed soon enough. I suppose all these procedural nonsense means it is unlikely the cases from Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee will be ready for the January 9 conference…

  • 7. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    The only reason I can think of is that perhaps the Justices have asked the clerks to wait until all four Sixth Circuit petitions are complete before distributing them. I believe that's the same reason the Seventh Circuit petitions were distributed within hours of being filed. I will say it again – it is IMPERATIVE for the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee plaintiffs to make sure the clerk gets their filings by the morning of Dec 23.

  • 8. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Actually, Robicheaux may be superior to Deboer simply because it is both a performance case and a recognition one, whereas DeBoer is just performance. The exception here being that DeBoer had a full trial.

  • 9. franklinsewell  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Wolf – You may want to check this. I think DeBoer is celebration and recognition. Not sure, though.

  • 10. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    I didn't think so, but you may be right. I'd surely like to know either way.

  • 11. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    SCOTUSblog says that apart from Robicheaux, DeBoer and Bourke are also up for consideration at the january 9 conference :

  • 12. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    As I noted below official dockets and SCOTUSblog distribution of petitions disagree on the status of the Michigan and Kentucky cases. But that's what I suspect as well, they may wait for all 4 6th circ petitions. On the other hand why did they distribute the Louisiana case for conference now ?

  • 13. A_Jayne  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Text of Judge Friedman's order in the DeBoer case:

    IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Michigan is enjoined from enforcing Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes.

    The Michigan Marriage Amendment states: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

    So it does appear that the case addresses both.

  • 14. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Yes but Robicheaux has not gone through the court of appeals and that factor only makes it a very unlikely candidate to be granted, given how hesitant SCOTUS is to touch the issue as well.

  • 15. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Good to know! Thank you, Jayne.

    *Addendum* Guitar's SCOTUSBlog link says otherwise or at least is vague…

  • 16. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    I'd say Deboer is the one to be granted cert.
    It has a full trial and it's from the circuit that created the split in the first place.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Looks like a busy day for the Justices and I'm pretty certain they are not happy to have the circuit split…..but now it is there and hopefully they will grant cert quickly in time for arguments and ruling before the end of the term.

  • 18. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Perhaps, but it is possible. They certainly deserve it considering all they've been through with that case. I hope you recall its peculiar history.

  • 19. BillinNO  |  December 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Allons, la Louisiane! Le jour de notre liberation est arrive'!

  • 20. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Perhaps the Justices will deny the Louisiana petition without second thought. If the Fifth affirms, Plaintiffs can always petition for cert again. So the decision to grant/deny cert here is low-risk. Not so for the Sixth Circuit cases.

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Lyle Denniston's article on Otter's amicus brief :

    "Idaho’s governor today asked the Supreme Court to wait to act on new same-sex marriage cases until after officials from his state can file an appeal, early next month. If the Court accepts the suggestion, that could slow down the process of setting up review of the constitutional dispute during the current Term."

    Which is exactly his target I suppose, push the issue into next year's term.

    "That docket also indicated that the four petitions from the Sixth Circuit are being handled as a group, although they have not yet been distributed to the Justices. There is one more date on which the cases could be sent to the Justices for consideration on January 9: next Tuesday."

    So that confirms what Raga said above, they will most likely all be distributed at once and that can only happen on the 23rd…Will the 3 other cases be ready by then ? I seriously doubt it I am afraid (we now have the crazy computer man asking to intervene in the Tennessee case as well !) …We may have lost the train at least for the jan.9 conference or even for that year…

  • 22. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    I'm not worried at all.
    The train has already left the station, we just have to wait for the 9th, simple as that.

  • 23. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Off topic:

    According to 'Philadelphia Magazine' (… ), three of the persons who were involved in the Philadelphia City Center gay-bashing last September will be going to trial, beginning January 6.

    No hate crime charges as a result of sexual identity are included, as Philadelphia didn't have them at the time of the gay-bashing, and the state still doesn't have them.

  • 24. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Wolf is technically correct. The relevant place to look at is the "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED" section (usually the second/third page of the pdf) of the cert petitions. DeBoer presents only the celebration question to the Justices: "whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry." One could argue that both recognition and celebration are included under the "right to marry", of course. To the contrary, for example, the Kentucky petition presents both questions clearly and unambiguously.

    Jayne is right above that the district court's injunction seems to have addressed both aspects, but when appealing to a higher court or petitioning for cert, appellants/petitioners are free to present only a subset of the issues at the lower court, and only those issues are considered to be "properly before the court."

  • 25. AndresM11  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Do you think this could mean the justices might deny cert. before judgment in Robicheaux (and therefore, let the Fifth continue their proceedings) and wait until all four petitions from the Sixth are ready in order to consolidate and grant them?

    If this were the case, I would be worried that we might run out of time for the case to be decided during this term… Is there any chance that all cases ruled by Sutton+Cook (DeBoer, Burke/Love, Tanco and Obergefell) are ready for consideration in the Jan. 9 conference? I think I remember there's still some opportunity, but all replies or waivers must be docketed by Dec. 23, right?

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Wait for the 9th ? You mean the 9th CA to decide on the en banc requests ?

    I am very worried personally that this is going to be prolonged for another year and a half.

  • 27. montezuma58  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Judge Cohen grants divorce in Brassner case.

  • 28. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Yep, exactly my thoughts above. Plaintiffs must make ABSOLITELY SURE that the clerk RECEIVES in their hands the replies/waivers by December 23, not simply mail them out that day.

  • 29. sfbob  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Michigan's case would be the strongest for several reasons:
    1. A full trial was held by the district court, with testimony from expert witnesses. Those hired to testify in behalf of Michigan's ban were determined by the district court judge not to be credible.
    2. The ruling covered both recognition of out-of-state-marriages and applications for marriage licenses within the state.
    3. The opinion was well-written.
    4. The district court's ruling was overturned on appeal; the circuit court's ruling was a joke.

  • 30. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    I agree, I will say I wish all of the lawsuits had covered in and out of state bans.
    I don't want to see a partial victory where in state bans are not touched upon.

  • 31. AndresM11  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Thanks Raga, great news! So there's still chance for all cases to be distributed and considered for the Jan. 9 Conference.

    I'm pretty sure the lawyers for our plaintiffs must be aware of this and doing their best to file those replies in time (or waive the right if that were the case).

    I live in a country with a highly inefficient public mailing system so I can relate to this situation hehehe (nobody uses public mailing here since it's more likely that the package gets lost in the process).

  • 32. franklinsewell  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Guitarist – He means January 9th.

  • 33. franklinsewell  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    I guess I just don't understand, besides the fact that there was a trial, why we would want DeBoer over other cases which deal with both celebration and recognition.

  • 34. Jen_in_MI  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    What the HELL is taking them so damned long??!

  • 35. Jen_in_MI  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Talk about someone swimming in white privilege – Sutton is so out of touch with the lived experiences of most of us that it's a cruel joke he is considered a jurist of integrity. He's a pompous asshat standing in the way of progress, and nothing more.

  • 36. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    From my understanding, it deals with both.

  • 37. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Cook as well, and she didn't even bother to hide it during the arguments.
    The few times she spoke, she made it clear she was a no vote.
    She and Sutton aren't judges, they are simply right wing hacks posing as them.
    I would ask them and every other judge who has ruled like them, whether in dissent or not, which right of yours do you want to put up to a public vote?

  • 38. franklinsewell  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Other commenters above suggest DeBoer ONLY deals with celebration.

  • 39. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    It was a joke but just the kind of ruling I knew Sutton would write.
    Sutton is a right wing hack and nothing more and I still don't get why anyone thought we would get a favorable ruling from him given his history and his harping about the ballot box during the hearings.
    As for Cook, she already showed herself to be a vile human being, this ruling just added to it.

  • 40. hopalongcassidy  |  December 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Mais oui, vraiment

  • 41. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Thank you, Ragavendran. :)

  • 42. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    It is questionable.

  • 43. hopalongcassidy  |  December 17, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    I can't believe the plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't properly manage that relatively minor housekeeping detail…do you have any reason to worry about it?

  • 44. hopalongcassidy  |  December 17, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Don't feel like the Lone Ranger…a lot of mail here in the USA gets lost, stolen or "confiscated".

  • 45. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    Yes. It never even occurred to me until it was revealed that the DeBoer Plaintiffs waived their reply in a letter dated Nov 25, but it didn't get filed in the docket until Dec 3. If they had been more careful and had their waiver filed on Nov 25, DeBoer could have been distributed for the December 12 conference and cert might already have been granted.

  • 46. hopalongcassidy  |  December 17, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Understood, accepted, agreed.

  • 47. guitaristbl  |  December 17, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    Oh yeah that makes sense. Still I am not too optimistic the 6th circ. cases will make it in time. We'll see.

  • 48. DrBriCA  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    As mentioned above, everyone's partially right.

    DeBoer is a great vehicle to SCOTUS as it has the full trial for the justices to review, which discredits a lot of the so-called "experts" from the state. The plaintiffs themselves are perfect figureheads, as they are a loving, committed lesbian couple who want marriage rights so that both can legally co-adopt their children (some of whom have special needs even). The child focus is a great vehicle for Kennedy, similar to how the tax penalties issued to Edith Windsor after the loss of her wife made her story a clear example of injury from DOMA.

    The district level ruling dealt with both issues (licenses and recognition). The circuit ruling dealt with both issues in its foul way. It was only recently with the petition from the plaintiffs that the focus narrowed in on marriage rights without explicitly discussing the recognition aspect as well. So, SCOTUS does have the recognition issue buried in both rulings, but it could technically just decide on licenses if it wants to be as myopic as possible.

  • 49. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Then spend the next few weeks worrying.
    It won't change the fact that IMO, SCOTUS is going to hear a case and put an end to this once and for all.

  • 50. DrBriCA  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    It would be amusing if SCOTUS listed only the Louisiana ruling so that it could summarily reverse the silly decision, thereby creating precedent while avoiding the all the work involved with the several petitions from the Sixth. (Not going to happen, I know, but it would just be funny to see a district-level decision be the one overturned for national precedence.)

  • 51. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    I'm hoping they'll deal with both.
    Having it so the in part of the bans stay in place will be a huge blow.

  • 52. DrBriCA  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Exactly. I want them to tackle both issues as well and not create any further legal chaos from "splitting the baby" by only looking at one issue. I think they still can tackle both through DeBoer since it's in the case history; Kentucky and Louisiana would be the two states that currently explicitly discuss both issues.

  • 53. weaverbear  |  December 17, 2014 at 5:32 pm


  • 54. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    I had similar thoughts. It would spit on Sutton nicely as well.

  • 55. Raga  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    Yes… Morning of January 9: Fifth Circuit hears oral argument from TX, LA, MS. Afternoon of January 9: SCOTUS releases an order list granting cert and simultaneously summarily reversing the district court, setting nationwide precedent :)

  • 56. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    By the way, tommorrow the bigots in Hawaii are going to try and gut the marriage equality law there.
    It's a long shot, the bigots are basically trying to claim the legislature has no power to undo the ban, let's see how that works out for them.

  • 57. Zack12  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    It would spit on him, Cook and the rest of the bigots on the 6th and elsewhere.
    Nice thought even though it won't happen.
    I'll settle for a ruling in our favor which rebukes him and Cook instead just like the DOMA ruling rebuked Chester Straub of the 2nd circuit.

  • 58. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Agreed, Zack.

  • 59. A_Jayne  |  December 17, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    Interesting. The part of the amendment that will be discussed: "the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" reads a bit like the law in KS that (paraphrasing) said the Democratic party shall appoint a nominee if their candidate drops out of the race. The KS supreme court decided it doesn't say they must. Similarly, I imagine the HI supreme court will also decide it doesn't say they must.

  • 60. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    When I was in college, my mother mailed to me my tuition for the next term. Since she lived about 35 miles distant in NE Indiana, and I was going to college in Indiana, she figured a couple days would 'do the trick', with the tuition check arriving a good 5 days prior to it being due.

    The letter containing the tuition check took a tour of Ohio (as witnessed by the various postal stamps) and finally arrived 2 weeks after my mother mailed it. (The college office responsible for tuition payments was getting impatient with me, so I took the unsealed letter directly to them to show what had happened.)

    A few years later, I wanted to mail a check to pay for my gas and electric bill (due the following day). I live in Baltimore, so I mailed it from DC (about 35 miles distant) on my way to work. It arrived at the Baltimore Gas and Electric company, and then my bank, the same day I mailed the payment. I fortunately had enough in the account. I guess I should have mailed the payment from DC on my way home.

    In the US, the postal service is generally good, but sometimes it can surprise people.

  • 61. scream4ever  |  December 17, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    Remember too that there is another day for conference on the 16th of January.

  • 62. guitaristbl  |  December 18, 2014 at 5:13 am

    Even if there was an one in a million chance for the bigoted republican senator to prevail on the merits here (if he convinces the court he has standing at all first), the 9th circuit decision renders the amendment unconstitutional anyway so there is no case IMO. Let them waste money and valuable judicial time.

  • 63. MichaelGrabow  |  December 18, 2014 at 5:59 am

    Your stories…

  • 64. JayJonson  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:01 am

    I don't understand why it is an unlikely venue towards equality. I hope they take it (and DeBoer as well) because taking it will mean that the Fifth Circuit will be frozen out of the deliberations (except insofar as Feldman is typical of what we can expect from the Fifth Circuit).

  • 65. Sagesse  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:07 am

    Ugh. Two new judges appointed this week likely won't change Canada's acceptance of LGBT rights, but Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stealth campaign to advance a religious right agenda are pretty scary some days. The public mood is such that anti-LGBT, anti-woman legislation won't fly here, and he knows it.

    Same-sex marriage harms free speech, new Ontario judge wrote in 2012 [Globe and Mail]

    "[Bradley Miller a] law professor named an Ontario judge this week wrote two years ago for a conservative, U.S.-based institute that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has harmed religious freedom and free speech, and led to the “indoctrination” of children in public schools….

    “The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely,” Prof. Miller wrote in Public Discourse, an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, a U.S. research centre that says it seeks “to enhance the public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies.”…

    "Prof. Miller argued against same-sex marriage on behalf of an interfaith coalition in an Ontario case in 2003, and in the same-sex reference case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. ([Justice Minister Peter] MacKay also promoted another lawyer who represented a group opposing gay marriage in that case, Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to the Ontario Court of Appeal this week.)"

  • 66. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:40 am

    Now we are in the realm that modern US English no longer recognizes the traditional use of the helping verbs shall and will. When I was learning English grammar in public school in Saint Louis in the 1940's, I shall, you will, & he,she,it will indicated the future tense (with no imperative intent). The contrary I will, you shall & he,she,it shall always indicated the imperative tense. Those distinctions are sadly no longer part of modern US English.

  • 67. USA, Louisiana: US Suprem&hellip  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:41 am

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 68. JayJonson  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Yes, and it does not really matter which case is heard. I know that most of us like DeBoer because of the trial record and the eloquent opinion. But that is not going to make much difference. SCOTUS knows what the issues are and, whatever case they take, will rule in light of the same question: can states ban same-sex couples from marrying and refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. At this point, the actual facts of any particular case is mostly irrelevant.

  • 69. A_Jayne  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:53 am

    In the case of the HI amendment, what the wording seems to say is that the legislature will have the power to so define marriage – what it doesn't say is the legislature must use that power to so define marriage. The legislature simply used its power to define marriage otherwise. Those who don't like what the legislature decided are now trying to subvert the meaning of the words to their own end.

  • 70. JayJonson  |  December 18, 2014 at 6:58 am

    Miller wrote for the Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse. I need not remind EoT readers that the Witherspoon Institute is responsible for the Regnerus hoax. Imo, that association alone should bar him from a judicial appointment.

  • 71. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 18, 2014 at 7:02 am

    Yes, which very much irked me.

    Their lawyers…not you, handsome. lol

  • 72. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 18, 2014 at 7:03 am

    With the selection of cases currently before them? Yes, I believe you're right, Jay.

  • 73. Raga  |  December 18, 2014 at 7:11 am

    Hear hear. I lost my entire LOST collection in the move to Boulder. Out of the six boxes I shipped, this one had to be the one to get lost in the mail :(

  • 74. tornado163  |  December 18, 2014 at 9:00 am

    I'm sure these lawfirms aren't just going to drop their motions in the mailbox on the corner. They'll be going with Fedex 1 day delivery with full signature confirmations and all the bells and whistles. Compared to hundreds of dollars an hour in legal fees, $20 for document shipping is a negligible cost.

  • 75. DACiowan  |  December 18, 2014 at 9:06 am

    There is another distribution for the 1/9 conference on the 23rd.

  • 76. sfbob  |  December 18, 2014 at 9:31 am

    I know I should not go on about site issues in comments but it really is aggravating that, today, half the "reply" buttons are greyed-out" and I am told simultaneously that I am logged in and that I need to log in in order to comment. And whenever I hit ANYTHING on the site I am switched to mobile

  • 77. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 18, 2014 at 11:22 am

    What about them? Did you experience them yourself? Do you have proof that they didn't happen? If so, maybe you should provide some evidence that what I experienced did not happen.

  • 78. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 18, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    In Federal contracting, the word 'will' indicates the permissive – the contractor (or government) can (if they wish) do or not do something.

    On the other hand, the word 'shall' indicates the imperative – the contractor (or government) is forced to do something or not do something. If the contract says an engineering AND environmental study shall be performed, the engineering AND environmental study must be performed. If one or both are not, the contractor has not performed the contract in the manner it says it will do, and can have the contract terminated for cause, and the next lowest bidder whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal (RFP) (or successfully negotiates a contract) performs the contract. However, the first contractor generally is still 'on the hook' to pay for any costs the second contractor bills for costs that exceed the lowest cost bidders' bid. (Since cost is not the only factor considered when awarding a contract, sometimes the winning bid is not necessarily the lowest cost bid.) (And contracts are negotiated, so if the RFP says one thing, the contract can include the RFP language, or it might not. Since the RFP is what the Federal government needs, the contract language almost always follows the RFP language rather closely.)

  • 79. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    It is my understanding that SCOTUS is not limited to only what is contained in the 'Questions Presented' section, but can go beyond such, when deciding a case. Generally SCOTUS doesn't, but it can.

    A lower Appeals Court, however, is much more limited to only the 'Questions Presented' when ruling.

  • 80. Raga  |  December 18, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Yeah I hope so too. The delay in the clerk receiving the waiver of the Michigan Plaintiffs dated Nov 25 on Dec 3 seems to me to indicate that perhaps they used USPS Media Mail or Parcel Post!

  • 81. fatihin  |  April 4, 2017 at 3:12 am

    undangan pernikahan kalender
    undangan pernikahan bahasa inggris islam
    undangan pernikahan islami
    undangan pernikahan unik dan murah
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan online
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan amplop surat
    undangan pernikahan simple
    undangan pernikahan murah
    undangan pernikahan unik
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan arab
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan
    Masker kefir<a/>
    masker kefir murni<a/>
    jual masker kefir<a/>

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!