Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. It’s Official: SCOTUS Home Page

 
A screenshot from Saturday evening, October 6, 2018.

If you clicked on “Oath Ceremony – Photos,” you saw both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy administering an oath to Justice Kavanaugh. This is because they take two oaths: the Constitutional Oath, followed by the Judicial Oath. It is worth considering the brief histories, and the words of the oaths, in light of the outrageous smear campaign that is not over yet. If jurists truly lived by their oaths, why would there be such a war over a particular vacancy?


The Constitutional Oath

As noted below in Article VI, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the Constitution:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The Constitution does not provide the wording for this oath, leaving that to the determination of Congress. From 1789 until 1861, this oath was, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” During the 1860s, this oath was altered several times before Congress settled on the text used today, which is set out at 5 U. S. C. § 3331. This oath is now taken by all federal employees, other than the President:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


The Judicial Oath

The origin of the second oath is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which reads “the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices” to take a second oath or affirmation. From 1789 to 1990, the original text used for this oath (1 Stat. 76 § 8) was:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” with “under the Constitution.” The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”


A final thought: look at the photograph of Justice Kavanaugh taking the Constitutional Oath. Pray for his family, with their images in mind. They all need both divine and human support. Then, go vote, to punish the evildoers and reinforce the ranks of those, who will protect this good man, his family, and our Constitution, against the leftist mobs — both virtual and physical.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    Huzzah!

    • #1
    • October 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  2. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher

    Sweet!

    • #2
    • October 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. She Reagan
    She Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hallelujah. Every news report I’ve seen says he’s the 114th Justice. But the Supreme Court page says he’s the 102nd. I wonder why the discrepancy. (Note: I don’t wonder much. But it’s odd.)

    Huh. Wikipedia lists 114 Justices. Wonder if that’s where all the august personages of the media get their information and if it’s just wrong. Maybe the SCOTUS page counts differently and excludes the Chief Justices from the list. That might make sense since it says 102nd Associate Justice. But all the Chief Justices were Associate Justices at some point.

    Rats. Now I’m going to be awake all night trying to figure this out.

    Does anyone know?

    • #3
    • October 6, 2018, at 8:42 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  4. Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… Member

    She (View Comment):

    Hallelujah. Every news report I’ve seen says he’s the 114th Justice. But the Supreme Court page says he’s the 102nd. I wonder why the discrepancy. (Note: I don’t wonder much. But it’s odd.)

    Huh. Wikipedia lists 114 Justices. Wonder if that’s where all the august personages of the media get their information and if it’s just wrong. Maybe the SCOTUS page counts differently and excludes the Chief Justices from the list. That might make sense since it says 102nd Associate Justice. But all the Chief Justices were Associate Justices at some point.

    Rats. Now I’m going to be awake all night trying to figure this out.

    Does anyone know?

    I think 102 is exclusive of the chief justices; just the associates.

    • #4
    • October 6, 2018, at 10:23 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Moderator Note:

    Bitter sarcasm like this is vulgar and rude. Please watch the tone as well as the content of your comments.

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    • #5
    • October 6, 2018, at 10:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Gaius (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Hallelujah. Every news report I’ve seen says he’s the 114th Justice. But the Supreme Court page says he’s the 102nd. I wonder why the discrepancy. (Note: I don’t wonder much. But it’s odd.)

    Huh. Wikipedia lists 114 Justices. Wonder if that’s where all the august personages of the media get their information and if it’s just wrong. Maybe the SCOTUS page counts differently and excludes the Chief Justices from the list. That might make sense since it says 102nd Associate Justice. But all the Chief Justices were Associate Justices at some point.

    Rats. Now I’m going to be awake all night trying to figure this out.

    Does anyone know?

    I think 102 is exclusive of the chief justices; just the associates.

    From the Supreme Court’s relevant page:

    Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, and there have been 102 Associate Justices in the Court’s history.

    There is another page which gives their accounting: Justices 1789 to Present. From there, it appears that President Carter was the only President, in the past century, not to appoint a single Justice. G.W. Bush only got one in his two terms [no, he also got a direct appointment of a Chief Justice, unlike Reagan, who elevated an Arizonan from Associate Justice, thus actually adding three new people to the Court].

    President Trump is on track to likely appoint as many (3) as did Reagan and Nixon [darn, CJ Burger was brought in from outside, so that is 4 total seats for Nixon]. He might even appoint as many (4) as Eisenhower [again with the direct CJ appointment! Score 5 and call it likely out of reach]. I doubt he will reach Taft’s 5. May President Trump be granted continued wisdom and steadfast courage in these matters.

    • #6
    • October 7, 2018, at 1:05 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  7. Judge Mental Member

    Let’s remember that not only would Hillary be seating her second justice, but likely both Ginsberg and Breyer would be retiring, meaning that we would have a 6-3 far left majority for at least the next 20 years. And that is assuming that Clarence Thomas would last through her eight years.

    • #7
    • October 7, 2018, at 1:24 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  8. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gaius (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Hallelujah. Every news report I’ve seen says he’s the 114th Justice. But the Supreme Court page says he’s the 102nd. I wonder why the discrepancy. (Note: I don’t wonder much. But it’s odd.)

    Huh. Wikipedia lists 114 Justices. Wonder if that’s where all the august personages of the media get their information and if it’s just wrong. Maybe the SCOTUS page counts differently and excludes the Chief Justices from the list. That might make sense since it says 102nd Associate Justice. But all the Chief Justices were Associate Justices at some point.

    Rats. Now I’m going to be awake all night trying to figure this out.

    Does anyone know?

    I think 102 is exclusive of the chief justices; just the associates.

    From the Supreme Court’s relevant page:

    Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, and there have been 102 Associate Justices in the Court’s history.

    There is another page which gives their accounting: Justices 1789 to Present. From there, it appears that President Carter was the only President, in the past century, not to appoint a single Justice. G.W. Bush only got one in his two terms.

    President Trump is on track to likely appoint as many (3) as did Reagan and Nixon. He might even appoint as many (4) as Eisenhower. I doubt he will reach Taft’s 5. May President Trump be granted continued wisdom and steadfast courage in these matters.

    Not all chiefs were previously associates. Warren, for instance, was previously governor of California. The current guy, Roberts, was direct rather than an upgrade, too.

    W appointed a Chief Justice as well as Alito.

    • #8
    • October 7, 2018, at 4:28 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  9. Columbo Member

    Moderator Note:

    Vulgar and Rude

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    • #9
    • October 7, 2018, at 4:29 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  10. Columbo Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Let’s remember that not only would Hillary be seating her second justice, but likely both Ginsberg and Breyer would be retiring, meaning that we would have a 6-3 far left majority for at least the next 20 years. And that is assuming that Clarence Thomas would last through her eight years.

    But … but … butt … principles?

    • #10
    • October 7, 2018, at 4:39 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    I think you failed to detect the sarcasm. 

    • #11
    • October 7, 2018, at 5:22 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  12. Mim526 Member

    Grinning at how much room the announcement of Associate Justice Kavanaugh takes up on the SCOTUS page screenshot. “He’s in. Try getting him out.”

    Also wondering what his new fellow justices might say to him upon first meeting after the ordeal aka GOP SCOTUS nominee Senate confirmation process. 

    • #12
    • October 7, 2018, at 5:44 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Columbo Member

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    I think you failed to detect the sarcasm.

    When the same commenter makes the same comments ad infinitum throughout our months long conversation during this entire confirmation process, the supposed ‘sarcasm’ is called into question.

    • #13
    • October 7, 2018, at 5:47 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  14. She Reagan
    She Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    James Of England (View Comment):

    Not all chiefs were previously associates. Warren, for instance, was previously governor of California. The current guy, Roberts, was direct rather than an upgrade, too.

    W appointed a Chief Justice as well as Alito.

    Thanks. That makes sense.

     

    • #14
    • October 7, 2018, at 6:13 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  15. iWe Reagan
    iWe Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    So does this mean he is sitting and judging from now – or did he miss the window because he missed the 1 Oct kickoff?

    • #15
    • October 7, 2018, at 7:11 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Columbo (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    I think you failed to detect the sarcasm.

    When the same commenter makes the same comments ad infinitum throughout our months long conversation during this entire confirmation process, the supposed ‘sarcasm’ is called into question.

    No, but you tend to miss the point of my comments. Don’t sweat it.

    • #16
    • October 7, 2018, at 7:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Columbo Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    I think you failed to detect the sarcasm.

    When the same commenter makes the same comments ad infinitum throughout our months long conversation during this entire confirmation process, the supposed ‘sarcasm’ is called into question.

    No, but you tend to miss the point of my comments. Don’t sweat it.

    It had no place on the celebration conversation.

    But don’t sweat it.

    • #17
    • October 7, 2018, at 8:05 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    iWe (View Comment):

    So does this mean he is sitting and judging from now – or did he miss the window because he missed the 1 Oct kickoff?

    He’s sitting and judging. There may be a couple of cases he’s missed (or they might be reheard), but he will be there for all the future arguments.

    • #18
    • October 7, 2018, at 10:11 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Clifford A. Brown: If jurists truly lived by their oaths, why would there be such a war over a particular vacancy? 

    Ummm . . . because they don’t?

    • #19
    • October 7, 2018, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    James Of England (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    So does this mean he is sitting and judging from now – or did he miss the window because he missed the 1 Oct kickoff?

    He’s sitting and judging. There may be a couple of cases he’s missed (or they might be reheard), but he will be there for all the future arguments.

    The calendar is on the SCOTUS website. He missed three days, 6 cases. At least one of those is very consequential and contentious. If there is a likely 4:4 tie on one or more of those 6 cases, the justices could choose to rehear oral arguments with Kavanaugh present so there can be a clear decision. Else, the law is whatever the relevant Circuit Court of Appeals held.

    • #20
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:03 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. formerlawprof Coolidge

    She (View Comment):
    But all the Chief Justices were Associate Justices at some point.

    That’s not so. (Which will help your math work out.)

    • #21
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:05 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We have now raised a drunken serial rapist to the Supreme Court. I hope he turns out worth the cost.

    [redacted]

    I think you failed to detect the sarcasm.

    When the same commenter makes the same comments ad infinitum throughout our months long conversation during this entire confirmation process, the supposed ‘sarcasm’ is called into question.

    No, but you tend to miss the point of my comments. Don’t sweat it.

    It had no place on the celebration conversation.

    But don’t sweat it.

    Is this something we should celebrate? That is the point of the comment. But never mind. Continue to dine on Leftist Tears and all that stuff. Carry on.

     

    • #22
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:09 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. formerlawprof Coolidge

    iWe (View Comment):
    So does this mean he is sitting and judging from now – or did he miss the window because he missed the 1 Oct kickoff?

    By tradition, justices do not vote on cases in which they did not hear oral argument, even though they can read all of the briefs and papers (and a transcript of the argument).

    Six cases were heard last week, so 8 justices will decide those cases. From time-to-time, the Court will order re-argument in a case, usually in the next Term, but possibly later in the same Term.

    • #23
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:10 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  24. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

     

    formerlawprof (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    So does this mean he is sitting and judging from now – or did he miss the window because he missed the 1 Oct kickoff?

    By tradition, justices do not vote on cases in which they did not hear oral argument, even though they can read all of the briefs and papers (and a transcript of the argument).

    Six cases were heard last week, so 8 justices will decide those cases. From time-to-time, the Court will order re-argument in a case, usually in the next Term, but possibly later in the same Term.

    The Court is quite public about its business. Here is the calendar. Click on the linked number, next to the name of the case, to get a short summary of the question(s) the Court has agreed to consider. The very first case was about EPA overreact, controlling private property. If this looks like it will be 4:4, I’d bet on re-argument.

    • #24
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:29 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Leigh Member

    I saw that apparently he had already been reading the briefs for this coming week. Just to be ready, just in case.

    • #25
    • October 7, 2018, at 3:40 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Now the left wing on the Court will not be able to force a 4:4 tie, leaving the 9th Circus ruling in place to empower sanctuary city/ non-cooperation with ICE. See this summary for the third oral argument Kavanaugh will hear. See illegal alien advocates on why this matters.

    • #26
    • October 7, 2018, at 4:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. formerlawprof Coolidge

    SCOTUS Schedule

    In responding to some posts on this thread, I forgot to add some tidbits on how the Court decides its argued cases.

    Typically, 2 cases are argued on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, in each of the first two weeks of (most) months.

    After the Wednesday arguments, the Justices have lunch together and then go to Conference, with no clerks, no secretaries, no nobody.

    At the Wednesday Conference, the Monday and Tuesday cases are actually voted on. (The opinions will not be published for several months or longer, but the results are known to all law clerks and some other staff by late Wednesday afternoon.)

    On Friday, the justices have lunch together again and then go to Conference again. Here, they decide the Wednesday cases and then decide which Petitions for Certiorari that have come through the pipeline in the past week to grant.

    So 6 cases have already been decided, which is part of the reason Kavanaugh is too late to the Bench for those. People have wondered about 4-4 splits, and there might be one. But a little-known fact of Supreme Court life is that 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 decisions make up well over 75% of the cases. 5-4 decisions get most of the ink, but they are far less common than most people think. (See the invaluable SCOTUSblog for charts and tables and running stats.)

     

    • #27
    • October 7, 2018, at 9:43 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  28. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    formerlawprof (View Comment):

    SCOTUS Schedule

    In responding to some posts on this thread, I forgot to add some tidbits on how the Court decides its argued cases.

    Typically, 2 cases are argued on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, in each of the first two weeks of (most) months.

    After the Wednesday arguments, the Justices have lunch together and then go to Conference, with no clerks, no secretaries, no nobody.

    At the Wednesday Conference, the Monday and Tuesday cases are actually voted on. (The opinions will not be published for several months or longer, but the results are known to all law clerks and some other staff by late Wednesday afternoon.)

    On Friday, the justices have lunch together again and then go to Conference again. Here, they decide the Wednesday cases and then decide which Petitions for Certiorari that have come through the pipeline in the past week to grant.

    So 6 cases have already been decided, which is part of the reason Kavanaugh is too late to the Bench for those. People have wondered about 4-4 splits, and there might be one. But a little-known fact of Supreme Court life is that 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 decisions make up well over 75% of the cases. 5-4 decisions get most of the ink, but they are far less common than most people think. (See the invaluable SCOTUSblog for charts and tables and running stats.)

    Perusing the questions presented over the first month, the non-controversial decision norm makes sense. At the same, time, it is not hard to guess that cases pushing hot buttons with the court in past terms would continue to generate close decisions.

    What about a @formerlawprof OP on topic? Optionally set to Schoolhouse Rock music.

    • #28
    • October 7, 2018, at 10:24 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. Judge Mental Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    formerlawprof (View Comment):

    SCOTUS Schedule

    In responding to some posts on this thread, I forgot to add some tidbits on how the Court decides its argued cases.

    Typically, 2 cases are argued on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, in each of the first two weeks of (most) months.

    After the Wednesday arguments, the Justices have lunch together and then go to Conference, with no clerks, no secretaries, no nobody.

    At the Wednesday Conference, the Monday and Tuesday cases are actually voted on. (The opinions will not be published for several months or longer, but the results are known to all law clerks and some other staff by late Wednesday afternoon.)

    On Friday, the justices have lunch together again and then go to Conference again. Here, they decide the Wednesday cases and then decide which Petitions for Certiorari that have come through the pipeline in the past week to grant.

    So 6 cases have already been decided, which is part of the reason Kavanaugh is too late to the Bench for those. People have wondered about 4-4 splits, and there might be one. But a little-known fact of Supreme Court life is that 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 decisions make up well over 75% of the cases. 5-4 decisions get most of the ink, but they are far less common than most people think. (See the invaluable SCOTUSblog for charts and tables and running stats.)

    Perusing the questions presented over the first month, the non-controversial decision norm makes sense. At the same, time, it is not hard to guess that cases pushing hot buttons with the court in past terms would continue to generate close decisions.

    Can I assume that Roberts decides the order of the cases? I wonder if there was any ordering of them designed to group non-controversial cases first to allow time for the confirmation.

    • #29
    • October 7, 2018, at 10:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    formerlawprof (View Comment):

    SCOTUS Schedule

    In responding to some posts on this thread, I forgot to add some tidbits on how the Court decides its argued cases.

    Typically, 2 cases are argued on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, in each of the first two weeks of (most) months.

    After the Wednesday arguments, the Justices have lunch together and then go to Conference, with no clerks, no secretaries, no nobody.

    At the Wednesday Conference, the Monday and Tuesday cases are actually voted on. (The opinions will not be published for several months or longer, but the results are known to all law clerks and some other staff by late Wednesday afternoon.)

    On Friday, the justices have lunch together again and then go to Conference again. Here, they decide the Wednesday cases and then decide which Petitions for Certiorari that have come through the pipeline in the past week to grant.

    So 6 cases have already been decided, which is part of the reason Kavanaugh is too late to the Bench for those. People have wondered about 4-4 splits, and there might be one. But a little-known fact of Supreme Court life is that 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 decisions make up well over 75% of the cases. 5-4 decisions get most of the ink, but they are far less common than most people think. (See the invaluable SCOTUSblog for charts and tables and running stats.)

    Perusing the questions presented over the first month, the non-controversial decision norm makes sense. At the same, time, it is not hard to guess that cases pushing hot buttons with the court in past terms would continue to generate close decisions.

    Can I assume that Roberts decides the order of the cases? I wonder if there was any ordering of them designed to group non-controversial cases first to allow time for the confirmation.

    I was imprecise in my wording. Overall, there are many cases that look like they might be decided with healthy majorities. The very first case this past Monday is not such a case.

    17-71 WEYERHAUSER COMPANY V. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
    DECISION BELOW: 827 F.3d 452
    CERT. GRANTED 1/22/2018
    QUESTION PRESENTED:
    Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to conserve “ecosystems upon which
    endangered species***depend.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). To that end, the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to “designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat.” Id. § 1533(a)(3)(A). “Critical habitat” may include areas “occupied by the species,” as well as “areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species” that are determined to be “essential for the conservation of the species.” Id. § 1532(5)(A).

    The Fish and Wildlife Service designated as critical habitat of the endangered dusky
    gopher frog a 1500- acre tract of private land that concededly contains no dusky gopher frogs and cannot provide habitat for them absent a radical change in land use because it lacks features necessary for their survival. The Service concluded that this designation could cost $34 million in lost development value of the tract. But it found that this cost is not disproportionate to “biological” benefits of designation and so refused to exclude the tract from designation under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2).

    A divided Fifth Circuit panel upheld the designation. The questions presented, which six judges of the court of appeals and fifteen States urged warrant further review because of their great importance, are:
    1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.
    2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.
    LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-31008
     

    • #30
    • October 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM PDT
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.