Okay, so this is a fairly decent explainer about how SCOTUS decides to take cases, but I think it's a little vague and lacking in some background explanation.

https://www.goldsteinrussell.com/pro-bono/supreme-court-criteria/ https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/1336151487357992961

So anyway, here are my thoughts, filtered through my experience, stated relatively bluntly.

Here are a few things that I think are not widely known about SCOTUS and how they take cases.

Here's the introductory paragraphs in the Goldstein article I linked in the first tweet, slightly rehashed with a little more explanation.

SCOTUS grants cases in two circumstances.

1) Where there is what is called a circuit split, meaning that a court of appeals in one place has said "The Law is A!" and a court of appeals in another place has said "The Law is B!"

This difference can mean that acts that are illegal in Arizona could be fine in New York based on differing interpretations of the law, and that's bad.

This is something like 95% of SCOTUS work: making the law consistent.

2) Issues of great national importance. Which are a little more vague, so more people write cert petitions saying "this is an issue of national importance."

Hint: It almost never is.

So that's your background.

The other thing you need to know is that SCOTUS is--rightfully!--terrified of making mistakes.

We think of SCOTUS justices as all powerful.

The reality is that they know just how easy it is for them to fuck things up.

I mean, look, for a variety of reasons having to do with codes of ethics and privacy and not talking about your job because you could mess up markets, as a SCOTUS justice, it is you, your fellow justices, and some 36-39 new graduates of law school.

Do you know how *easy* it is to...just not notice something? When it's basically nine of you and 36 kids?

And yes, there is SCOTUS staff who will help with research--they're amazing--but THE REST OF THE WORLD expects you to be perfect, and they will notice if you are not!

So that plays into a LOT of how they make decisions.

Yes, a circuit split is a reason for SCOTUS to take a case. But they often want to let a circuit split "develop."

There are lots of reasons behind that, but one of them is this: The longer something develops, the more people have a chance to weigh in, the less likely SCOTUS is to miss something that might change their mind.

SCOTUS doesn't want to take a case on a brand new 1-1 circuit split, not realize that there's something else going on, and then discover after the fact that they completely screwed the pooch.

They want as many people to weigh in as possible.

Likewise, SCOTUS doesn't want to take a case with shitty lawyers. (It is literally one of the reasons you can give in a cert memo for why you recommend denying.)

Why? Because good lawyers help you write good opinions.

Shitty lawyers fail to raise important issues, and that in turn means you might miss things and make bad decisions.

(Sidenote: I saw one case with shitty lawyers when I was a clerk, and I still think it was wrongly decided, for reasons the immensely shitty lawyers didn't even raise, and I think time has only proven my reasons more than right, but whatever.)

And since you are trying to clarify questions of law, you need to find a case where those questions are clearly presented and not muddied by a lot of bullshit, because bullshit can force you to deal with things you aren't equipped to decide.

The end result of much of this is that SCOTUS is a much more conservative (small-c) institution than you would think. They take small steps. They signal to advocates well in advance if they are thinking of taking a step into new territory.

They do not LIKE sticking their necks out, because for all that they seem very powerful, they are very aware that they have a tiny handful of US marshals and zero enforcement power and that if they go off the rails the entire country will go, too.

Does this mean they won't *ever* do it? Obviously not, see Bush v. Gore.

But like.... my god, I can't say too much about this, but I worked at SCOTUS 8 years after Bush v. Gore, and it was *still* a smarting wound.

I think one of the things I learned as a clerk was that SCOTUS justices are very human. And they're very risk averse. VERY much so.

It's obviously a different set of personalities on the Court, but I do not think there is a solitary chance in hell, for all the reasons stated above, that they would want to hear any of the Trump election challenges.

And look, I fully believe that at least Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are the Absolute Worst and would totally steal an election for Trump if they could get away with it.

I am just telling you they would also say "I don't know her" if they *couldn't* get away with it.

There is no getaway vehicle here. It's not even like they have a broken-down jalopy that needs to be jumpstarted. There is no car. There is no pretense of a car.

It's a moldy slice of four-day old pizza, and they can't pretend it's a car.