...and just to elaborate on that, most cases are on the agenda for one conference, at which the court will decide either to hear it or not to hear it. In very rare instances [and this case is one of them], a case will be on the agenda for one conference, but not decided either way, and is "re-listed" for the next conference. That means that at least one justice, but less than four, wants to hear it, and that other justices haven't made their mind up one way or the other and want to think about it, or discuss it, some more.
Thanks—that’s new information for me: 0>JJ<4. I hadn’t given any thought to, nor read anything about, the mechanics of those conferences. However, couldn’t it also be on occasion that for some unrelated reason they simply didn’t address it at all during the first conference?