Ed. note: ATL has teamed up with FantasySCOTUS, the premier Supreme Court fantasy league. (For more background, check out this WSJ Law Blog post.) On Fridays, the 10th Justice will analyze league voting to predict how the Supreme Court may decide upcoming cases.
Welcome to the third installment of Predictions of the 10th Justice, brought to you by FantasySCOTUS.net. The league has over 2,000 members, who have made predictions on all cases currently pending before the Supreme Court. Recently, Justice Stephen G. Breyer was asked in an interview about FantasySCOTUS.net. His response: “I don’t think I will bet on it.”
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Supreme Court considered whether the Railway Labor Act authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and if the Board can adopt a new, retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its arbitration proceedings. Justice Ginsburg writing for the Court ruled that the requirement that parties submit proof that they have conferred on issues before seeking arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court unanimously. Sixty-eight Members predicted this case. Forty-six correctly voted for affirmance (68%), while 22 incorrectly predicted a reversal (32%). Eighteen Members (27%) correctly predicted that the split would be 9-0 affirm. Of the members who correctly guessed the outcome as affirm, 40% correctly predicted the split.
In Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, the Supreme Court considered whether a lower court’s decision on attorney-client privilege can be immediately appealed to a higher court. Justice Sotomayor, writing her first opinion, agreed with the lower court that trial judge’s decision to release documents created by Mohawk Industries’ lawyer could not be appealed through an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court unanimously, with a concurrence by Justice Thomas. One hundred and seventy-six Members predicted this case. One hundred and thirteen correctly predicted an affirmance (64%), while 22 incorrectly predicted a reversal (36%). Forty-five Members (26%) correctly predicted that the split would be 9-0 affirm. Of the members who correctly guessed the outcome as affirm, 40% correctly predicted the split.
Predictions for Beard v. Kindler and Alvarez v. Smith, a hypothesis on the scarcity of 8-1 predictions, the FantasySCOTUS.net scoreboard after the first four opinions, tips on predicting future cases, and more, at Predictions of the 10th Justice.