History. 5 of 6. Bates in 2003, Virginia uranium in 2017, Arkansas in 2019, California in 2021 and Monsanto in 2025 got the request at the first meeting. In 2009 the Court waited one meeting for a related request.
Hunch. A second request from the same split, against Nevada, is also before the Court, and in the only earlier case with a related request, in 2009, the Court waited one meeting for it.
Resolves on Supreme Court docket 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX. YES if the order list issued after the first conference at which the petition is considered invites the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. NO if that order list grants the petition, denies it, or the docket shows it relisted for a later conference without such an invitation. If the petition has not been considered at any conference by the order list of 25 January 2027 (after the 22 January conference), the market is VOID and counts in neither the numerator nor the denominator of the accuracy record. An invitation in docket 26-344 alone does not count. Base: 5 of 6 at the first conference after briefing was complete; the exception, Level 3 (2009), waited one conference for the related Sprint petition.
We looked for cases where three or more federal appeals courts disagreed over whether a federal law overrides state law, and one side asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. We found six since 2003. In all six the Court asked the US government for its view before deciding. The judges decide which cases to hear at private meetings. In five of the six they asked at the first meeting where they looked at the case, once both sides had sent in their papers. In the sixth they waited one meeting so that a second, related request could be decided with it. The Supreme Court is the one decider in all six.