Search Results: party all the time

For those on mobile who can’t see the picture, the excerpt is below.

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/.../25-10534-CV0.pdf

Page 6 of Case No. 25-10534

Rather than commend the district court, however, the Supreme Court charged the district court with "inaction-not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes." Id. at _ This inaction was, according to the Court, tantamount to "refusing" to rule on the injunction. Id. at_
This charge is worth exploring. To get to 14 hours and 28 minutes (rather than 42 minutes), the Court was obviously starting the clock at 12:34 a. m., rather than 12:48 p. m. (when Petitioners told the district court for the first time that they wanted a ruling before the Government could respond).
But starting the clock at 12:34 a. m. not only ignores the court's express instructions respecting the Government's right to respond. It also ignores the fact that the Court is starting the clock at — 12:34 a. m.
We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny's.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.
If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U. S.
Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country.
If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua-and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded.