And now, for something completely different ...
In today's orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court did not take up any new cases for full briefing and argument. They did summarily dispose of a few cases. Several were on the common ground that the lower court needs to take another look after the Supreme Court decided a similar issue in another case. Dog bites man -- not news. The court also refused to take up a long list of cases without stating a reason, also completely routine.
Missud v. Court of Appeal of Cal., No. 15-5601 is decidedly different. The Court lacks a quorum because five Justices are recused, and by statute that results in a summary affirmance. How did five Justices get recused?
In today's orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court did not take up any new cases for full briefing and argument. They did summarily dispose of a few cases. Several were on the common ground that the lower court needs to take another look after the Supreme Court decided a similar issue in another case. Dog bites man -- not news. The court also refused to take up a long list of cases without stating a reason, also completely routine.
Missud v. Court of Appeal of Cal., No. 15-5601 is decidedly different. The Court lacks a quorum because five Justices are recused, and by statute that results in a summary affirmance. How did five Justices get recused?
Patrick Missud is a disbarred California lawyer according to the State Bar's online lawyer status page. According to the California Court of Appeal decision in the underlying case:
The trial court threw out his suit, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and Missud filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court, which it summarily denied. That is the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why are five Justices recused? Is it coincidence that they are the five generally regarded as "conservative"? I do not know. Given Missud's pattern of behavior, I would not be surprised if he made frivolous allegations against them. (Just speculating -- I can't find the certiorari petition online.) Past behavior is, after all, the best predictor of future behavior. If that is the source of the recusals, then his efforts got him a summary affirmance of the decision against him, and there would be some poetic justice in that.
Update: My speculation has been confirmed. See follow-up post October 16.
Appellant [Missud] was admitted to the California Bar in 2002. In 2004, appellant purchased a home in Nevada. During the seven years that followed, he engaged in litigation arising out of that purchase. Appellant filed at least eight separate lawsuits, and multiple motions and appeals in California and Nevada, but failed to prevail in any of that litigation. On March 22, 2012, a federal district court declared appellant a vexatious litigant and referred him to respondent [the State Bar] for disciplinary action. Respondent also received referrals about appellant from several of his opposing counsel.Then he sued the State Bar for defamation for publishing the recommendation in his disbarment proceeding. Filing frivolous litigation as a way to cope with getting your ticket yanked for filing frivolous litigation is a suboptimum strategy, IMHO.
The trial court threw out his suit, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and Missud filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court, which it summarily denied. That is the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why are five Justices recused? Is it coincidence that they are the five generally regarded as "conservative"? I do not know. Given Missud's pattern of behavior, I would not be surprised if he made frivolous allegations against them. (Just speculating -- I can't find the certiorari petition online.) Past behavior is, after all, the best predictor of future behavior. If that is the source of the recusals, then his efforts got him a summary affirmance of the decision against him, and there would be some poetic justice in that.
Update: My speculation has been confirmed. See follow-up post October 16.
Weird thing is that a search seems to suggest USSC, without a problem, handled his petition in the past. Looking over past orders, his name pops up. Your hypothesis sounds reasonable.