I don’t think any of this information is publically available, and my guess is it won’t be. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the DOJ didn’t get the four votes necessary for the SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

Which justices (if any) voted for review or recused themselves isn’t clear. Likewise, recusal is purely up to the discretion of the individual justices, and the reasons for recusals are rarely discussed publically by the recusing judge. One would imagine that whatever caused Justice Roberts to recuse himself from the en-banc review earlier in the year would still apply.

The denial of review probably shouldn’t have come as a suprise to long term observers of the SCOTUS. As was mentioned here before, the Supreme Court simply doesn’t “do” interlocutory appeals very often, and considering that no liability has yet been established in this case, this one really isn’t urgent.

Should this case on its merits be reviewed by the DCCA, the SCOTUS could theoretically get another crack at reviewing the issue of disgorgement in civil RICO proceedings, though realistically the chance of it happening that way is probably also small.

I don’t think any of this information is publically available, and my guess is it won’t be. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the DOJ didn’t get the four votes necessary for the SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

Which justices (if any) voted for review or recused themselves isn’t clear. Likewise, recusal is purely up to the discretion of the individual justices, and the reasons for recusals are rarely discussed publically by the recusing judge. One would imagine that whatever caused Justice Roberts to recuse himself from the en-banc review earlier in the year would still apply.

The denial of review probably shouldn’t have come as a suprise to long term observers of the SCOTUS. As was mentioned here before, the Supreme Court simply doesn’t “do” interlocutory appeals very often, and considering that no liability has yet been established in this case, this one really isn’t urgent.

Should this case on its merits be reviewed by the DCCA, the SCOTUS could theoretically get another crack at reviewing the issue of disgorgement in civil RICO proceedings, though realistically the chance of it happening that way is probably also small.

This blog is meant to give more inside, complete and complementary reports than what the news services can provide. There is very, very little information about the recent Supreme Court decision; thus, there is little I can contribute beyond the wire services’ reports.

If anyone knows if Justice Roberts recused himself as he did for the DCCA decision, or if Justices Thomas or Scalia recused themselves because of their smoking habits, or of any other recusals or should-be recusals because of stock holdings, law firm connections or any other reason–not to mention the actual tally of votes–please let me know.

Where is the news here on the Supreme Court decision?

Does this blog only report when bad things happen to the Tobacco companies?