Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

TommyBrady12 said:

the suspension is stayed as of now and until a decision is made

Click to expand...

How do you know that? not doubting you, just curious as I have not heard that from any legitimate source yet.

BelichicksBlackEye said:

How do you know that? not doubting you, just curious as I have not heard that from any legitimate source yet.

Click to expand...

it's in the federal rules of appellate procedure

Rule 41(d)(1)

Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay

(d) Staying the Mandate.

(1) On Petition for Rehearing or Motion.The timely filing of a petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, stays the mandate until disposition of the petition or motion, unless the court orders otherwise.

TommyBrady12 said:

the suspension is stayed as of now and until a decision is made

Click to expand...

Technically I think there is no suspension until Judge Berman signs the order to confirm it. Which of course he has not done yet.

sb1 said:

Technically I think there is no suspension until Judge Berman signs the order to confirm it. Which of course he has not done yet.

Click to expand...

Yet, no one has reported it this way.......everything I hear is that he is gone, unless en banc hearing is granted.

Also, if en banc is denied, what are the SCOTUS rules as far as deciding if they will hear it? My understanding was that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be the justice that accepts or denies the case? If so, how long does she have to rule and again, is suspension stayed until she decides?

fgssand said:

Yet, no one has reported it this way.......everything I hear is that he is gone, unless en banc hearing is granted.

Also, if en banc is denied, what are the SCOTUS rules as far as deciding if they will hear it? My understanding was that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be the justice that accepts or denies the case? If so, how long does she have to rule and again, is suspension stayed until she decides?

Click to expand...

Justice ginsburg can issue emergency stays for cases arising in the 2nd circuit. However, 4 justices have to agree to hear the case (grant a petition for certioari). Deciding whether SCOTUS will hear a case comes down to a variety of factors, including its broad ranging implications and whether there is conflict at the lower court level.

TommyBrady12 said:

Justice ginsburg can issue emergency stays for cases arising in the 2nd circuit. However, 4 justices have to agree to hear the case.

Click to expand...

Doesnt en banc request have to play out first though?

fgssand said:

Doesnt en banc request have to play out first though?

Click to expand...

Yes exactly

fgssand said:

Doesnt en banc request have to play out first though?

Click to expand...

Yes and No, you have to ask for a full hearing but even if the appealate court denies your motion for a full hearing, you can still petition the SC to hear your case. Of course, if the SC says no, then your done.

sb1 said:

Technically I think there is no suspension until Judge Berman signs the order to confirm it. Which of course he has not done yet.

Click to expand...

Correct. The CA2 panel issued an order to Berman to vacate his decision blocking the suspension. Per standard procedure the panel order was stayed until 7 days after the en banc petition deadline passed. NFLPA/Brady (obviously) filed a petition before the deadline expired. Per standard procedure (as @TommyBrady12 noted above) that stayed the panel order until 7 days after CA2 denies the en banc request. If, instead, they grant the en banc request, that voids the panel decision and order so there is no need to request any stay in that case.

Now, if CA2 denies the en banc request, NFLPA/Brady will ask the original CA2 panel to stay its decision pending SCOTUS's decision on whether or not to hear the case. If the panel refuses to grant a stay, NFLPA/Brady will (presumably) then ask Ginsburg for a stay. She is very unlikely to directly act on it but will instead refer it to the full SCOTUS (again, that's standard procedure except when there's a real emergency) where it would take 5 votes to grant the stay.

Finally, once the CA2-level decision is final (either because en banc is denied, or en banc is granted and an ultimate decision issued by the en banc court), whoever wants SCOTUS to take the case has (initially) 90 days to file a petition for certiorari, with extensions possible, after that, and the other side getting to file a brief in opposition once the petition is filed. And only then does SCOTUS start its process of deciding whether or not to hear the case.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Two possible answers:

One. They just plain feel sorry for us because we're dependent on one local newspaper that's home to the CHB and the MCI and another that is best known for the Tomass hatchet job the day before the biggest game in Pats history.

Two. Maybe, just maybe, they really are concerned about the truth...don't laugh...there are journalists out there who still think that the truth matters, as quaint as that might sound.

Click to expand...

Here's a third possibility - WaPo is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos who is worth about $62 billion and pledged Long before this whole thing started that he would provide the financial runway to turn the struggling paper, and hopefully, the industry around.

TommyBrady12 said:

it's in the federal rules of appellate procedure

Rule 41(d)(1)

Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay

(d) Staying the Mandate.

(1) On Petition for Rehearing or Motion.The timely filing of a petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, stays the mandate until disposition of the petition or motion, unless the court orders otherwise.

Click to expand...

So best case scenario it takes them a year to even decide whether or not they will hear it and then another year to have the hearing

patfanken said:

Of course there is no guarantee it will take that long, but bottom line, it sets up to be a pretty exciting week since we SHOULD find out by the end of it, whether they will or will not rehear the case.

BTW- quick question. hypothetically, if the 2nd circuit refuses to hear the case en banc ( I love saying "en banc". ), and Brady immediately decides to appeal to the Supreme court; does that action stay the suspension again at least until SCOTUS decides whether to hear the case or not?

Click to expand...

Quantum gives a great answer to your question a couple of posts up from this.

Ivan said:

Quantum gives a great answer to your question a couple of posts up from this.

Click to expand...

tl;dr

fgssand said:

Yet, no one has reported it this way.......everything I hear is that he is gone, unless en banc hearing is granted.

Also, if en banc is denied, what are the SCOTUS rules as far as deciding if they will hear it? My understanding was that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be the justice that accepts or denies the case? If so, how long does she have to rule and again, is suspension stayed until she decides?

Click to expand...

No. She would be the one to issue an interim stay, if she thought it were warranted, but four Justices have to vote to accept the case for it to be heard. Others have posted that that could take six weeks or longer.

BradyFTW! said:

Nope, no way I'm reading anything from Lester Munson.

Click to expand...

How Tom Brady is gearing up for the Supreme Court

Actually, disgraced lawyer Lester Munson did a pretty good job with that article. It's a comprehensive, intelligent even-handed look at the case (unlike everything else that brown-nosing Goodell whore has previously written). He must have gotten a couple of pretty good law clerks to write it. I know many on this board refuse to give ESPN the clicks but the article is actually worth your time.

Look at it this way: the fact that he's hedging his bets means that he's getting a little nervous.

Brandon_Cox said:

How Tom Brady is gearing up for the Supreme Court

Actually, disgraced lawyer Lester Munson did a pretty good job with that article. It's a comprehensive, intelligent even-handed look at the case (unlike everything else that brown-nosing Goodell whore has previously written). He must have gotten a couple of pretty good law clerks to write it. I know many on this board refuse to give ESPN the clicks but the article is actually worth your time.

Look at it this way: the fact that he's hedging his bets means that he's getting a little nervous.

Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. Lester the Molester and ESPN can kiss my ###...

Brandon_Cox said:

How Tom Brady is gearing up for the Supreme Court

Actually, disgraced lawyer Lester Munson did a pretty good job with that article. It's a comprehensive, intelligent even-handed look at the case (unlike everything else that brown-nosing Goodell whore has previously written). He must have gotten a couple of pretty good law clerks to write it. I know many on this board refuse to give ESPN the clicks but the article is actually worth your time.

Look at it this way: the fact that he's hedging his bets means that he's getting a little nervous.

Click to expand...

ESPN is laying off a ton of people this year. He knows that he is about to get a bag put over his head so hes trying to balance himself out for prospective employers.

Brandon_Cox said:

How Tom Brady is gearing up for the Supreme Court

Actually, disgraced lawyer Lester Munson did a pretty good job with that article. It's a comprehensive, intelligent even-handed look at the case (unlike everything else that brown-nosing Goodell whore has previously written). He must have gotten a couple of pretty good law clerks to write it. I know many on this board refuse to give ESPN the clicks but the article is actually worth your time.

Look at it this way: the fact that he's hedging his bets means that he's getting a little nervous.

Click to expand...

Well he did try and make it a point that Fienberg didn't ever come out and say Brady was innocent in his brief like that was somehow telling. He's just a hack for the NFL*