.

Thank you for considering my question about the SCOTUS process...

I understand that four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case, that five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, and under certain instances one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

Until I began to keep track of the activity in the Peruta vs. CA case, I had always associated Conference discussions being conducted after oral arguments, yet here is the timeline for the Peruta case showing Conference discussions.

My questions are:
1) Are the Conferences used to discuss and vote on which cases to accept?
2) Is it normal for a case to be distributed for Conference as many times as the Peruta case?

www.SupremeCourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

06/12/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
06/05/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
05/30/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
05/22/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
05/15/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
05/08/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
04/24/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
04/20/17 Rescheduled.
04/17/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
04/12/17 Rescheduled.
04/10/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
03/30/17 Rescheduled.
03/27/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
03/23/17 Rescheduled.
03/08/17 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.

03/07/17 Reply of petitioners Edward Peruta, et al. filed.
02/16/17 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.
02/16/17 Brief amici curiae of Western States Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.
02/16/17 Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
02/16/17 Brief of respondents County of Yolo and Sheriff Ed Prieto in opposition filed.
02/16/17 Brief amici curiae of Alabama and 25 other States filed.
02/16/17 Brief amici curiae of The Governors of Texas, et al. filed.
02/16/17 Brief amici curiae of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.
02/16/17 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed.
02/15/17 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.

02/06/17 Consent the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., et al..
02/02/17 Waiver of right of respondents County of San Diego and Sheriff William D. Gore to respond filed.
01/27/17 Letter received from counsel for respondent.
01/26/17 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel petitioners.

01/12/17 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2017)
12/05/16 Application (16A440) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 12, 2017.
12/02/16 Application (16A440) to extend further the time from December 14, 2016 to January 12, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
10/31/16 Application (16A440) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 13, 2016 to December 14, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.

Maybe perusing the info here will answer most of the questions.

Link

.

Thanks Jallen, the link you provided to the Supreme Court Blog contained more detail about the process than the SCOTUS own's information page.

My second question still stands, the SCOTUS has discussed the case six times in Conference and it is on their June 15th agenda again.

Are most cases they choose to hear discussed this many times or is it that the more it's discussed in Conference the less of a chance there is for the case to be heard in court?

.

quote:

Originally posted by sleepla8er:
.

Thanks Jallen, the link you provided to the Supreme Court Blog contained more detail about the process than the SCOTUS own's information page.

My second question still stands, the SCOTUS has discussed the case six times in Conference and it is on their June 15th agenda again.

Are most cases they choose to hear discussed this many times or is it that the more it's discussed in Conference the less of a chance there is for the case to be heard in court?

.

I doubt if the case has been discussed in conference on each occasion when it was distributed. My guess is these postponements are uncommon, but I have no idea what is behind it.

I might expect the vacancy was a factor, but that has been filled now. We likely will never know. The term ends in a week or so.