Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360, Washington (March 19, 2020, 5:12 PM EDT ) Unsatisfied litigants hoping to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court caught a break Thursday when the justices extended deadlines to file petitions for review from 90 days to 150 days after a lower court judgment, in addition to other accommodations for those affected by the spread of COVID-19.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday that it would give litigants more time to appeal judgments from lower courts and allow other time extensions that are requested due to impacts of COVID-19. (AP)
The court also ordered Thursday that motions for extensions of time be granted "as a matter of course" if the request is reasonable and has to do with "difficulties relating to COVID-19."
The court specified that none of the accommodations would apply to cases in which the court has already granted certiorari, or review, or is otherwise set for argument.
The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the Supreme Court term. Last week, the court said it would close to the public but remain open for official business. On Monday, the court took things a step further and postponed the two-week oral argument session scheduled to begin this Monday.
The last time the court rescheduled its hearings because of a public health crisis was in the fall of 1918, when Washington, D.C., was hit with a deadly outbreak of Spanish flu. Before that, the court rescheduled arguments in the 1790s in response to outbreaks of yellow fever.
The new coronavirus has pushed the high-profile arguments involving President Donald Trump's personal finances, scheduled for the March term, further into the thick of election season.
The cases focus on whether Trump's financial records must be released. One of them, Trump v. Vance, involves whether the Manhattan district attorney can subpoena nearly 10 years' worth of the president's financial papers and tax returns. And the other, Trump v. Mazars, deals with whether the House Committee on Oversight and Reform can subpoena nearly a decade's worth of his financial and tax records.
It's unclear when or how the court will reschedule the oral arguments, but many court watchers want the justices to use the experience as an opportunity to adopt modern tools like livestreaming audio that it has resisted for years.
"They obviously should figure out how to do live audio," said Gabe Roth, executive director of judicial watchdog group Fix the Court.
Roth said there's still uncertainty surrounding the next scheduled oral argument session on April 20.
"My guess is if they do have an argument on April 20, there will not be a public gallery," he said. "The bottom line is, should the court reconvene on April 20, the court should put in some policies where what goes on in the courtroom can be heard in real time anywhere in the country."
--Additional reporting by Christopher Cole. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
