Does the DOJ have to argue for every case brought to the Supreme Court?

Nolibzone ^ | Dec 28, 2014 | NLZ

[NoLibZone]

Does the administration have any role in which cases are argued in the Supreme Court?

Do they have to take one side?

Or can the simply pass on the case?

What are the terms used for passing a case, or agreeing with one side?

Thank you!

[Regal]

Neither the executive or legislative branch have any say in what cases are heard and the DOJ has no role unless they are a party to the case.

[cheesemaster]

There are plenty of examples where a government has refused to support the laws they are sworn to uphold. Look at DOMA.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That's how it seems to me. By not pursuing a case, they have placed themselves in the stead of the Court, which is part of the Judicial branch.

I'm not getting your point. Suppose Private Citizen Joe Blow sues private company XYZ Corp. for violating the Investment Company Act of 1944. The Supreme Court hears an appeal in that case; how is the DOJ "placing themselves in the stead of the Court" if they don't file a brief?

[Still Thinking]

I think he means a case where a federal law the administration dislikes is the issue at hand so they punt and intentionally lose, even though they were legally and ethically required to defend the law. DOMA, etc.

[NoLibZone]

Thank you For example in the case of Riley vs California. News articles state that the Obama administration lost. How was the WH involved? "Roberts and his colleagues soundly rejected arguments from the Obama administration that because police can search a few printed photographs found in someone’s wallet, officers were free to search thousands of images and the troves of other personal data contained on a typical smartphone."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/scotus-cellphone-ruling-nsa-fight-108331.html#ixzz3NEc6N1SX

[Lurking Libertarian]

OK, that makes more sense.

[Blood of Tyrants]

If the case involves defending the law, yes, the DOJ is supposed to defend it. But as we have seen in the Obumbmler administration (DOMA), that doesn’t always happen. Holder only defends the laws Obama likes and they ignore the others.

[NoLibZone]

What if the WH doesn’t agree with the law being heard?

Do they still have to file an Amicus Brief?

Or can they stay away?

[Sasparilla]

The Solicitor General is a direct functionary of the Department of Justice. He works for Holder.

He obeys the dictates of Zero.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What if the WH doesn’t agree with the law being heard? Do they still have to file an Amicus Brief? Or can they stay away?

Most Supreme Court cases do not involve a challenge to the validity of a federal law; they involve either a question of the interpretation of a federal law, the validity of a state law or court decision under the federal Constitution, or something similar.

If the validity of a federal law is involved, and the Administration doesn't want to defend the law (as Obama did in the DOMA case, and other administrations have occasionally done in the past), the DOJ will say so in their brief, but they won't refuse to file any brief at all if a brief has been "requested" by SCOTUS.