In response to my top five reasons why the Supreme Court granted full review in Tobacco instead of Pfizer, a reader writes:
I think your reasons 2 3 4 and 5 as to why Tobacco II is the lead are all sound and plausible.
Reason 1, however, the expediting of consideration of the Tobacco II petition, is the consequence of the Court's decision to grant and hold Pfizer, not the reason for granting review of Tobacco II. As you note, Pfizer was extended to Nov. 9. Next week, however, is oral argument and the Court does not hold its weekly conference to consider petitions for review; thus, the final conference at which to grant review (or grant and hold) Pfizer was Nov. 1. Normally, in fact, the Court considers a petition at least two conferences before time to grant review expires. Thus, the likely scenario is that the Court considered Pfizer at the Oct 25 conference and was made aware that Tobacco II was pending and was probably a better lead case, Court tentatively decides that Tobacco II will probably be lead but wants to grant and hold Pfizer in case it presents additional issues; the only way to do this is to act on both petitions on Nov 1, the last conference before time to grant Pfizer expires, thus, the reason for the order to get the answer in Tobacco II in in time for consideration at the Nov 1 conference. Thus, I would be surprised if the Court actually expedites the appeal in Tobacco II because its reasons for expediting consideration of the petition for review had nothing to do with Tobacco II or any need to decide it quickly and everything to do with its desire to grant and hold Pfizer.
That is very interesting and helpful, and makes sense considering that the petition for review in Tobacco did not request expedited review. When the Supreme Court said it was considering expediting the petition, I assumed that an explicit request for expedited review had been made. That turns out not to be the case. Thanks to the person who wrote for taking time to share your insights.