Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Sibley v. Supreme Court of the United States et al., 2012 — 568 U.S. 801 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Sibley v. Supreme Court of the United States et al.
568 U.S. 801·Supreme Court of the United States·2012
The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
October 1, 2012
No. 11-1491.
Sibley v. Supreme Court of the United States et al.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. D. C. Cir. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”
The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.