Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,281 posts)
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 09:24 AM Jun 11

The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up


(Slate) The Supreme Court is about to drown us in a deluge of explosive and massively consequential decisions involving some of the most controversial issues of the day. Right now, the justices are scrambling to complete blockbusters involving abortion, guns, homelessness, unions, social media, online disinformation, pollution, the administrative state—and, oh yes, hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including Donald Trump’s. Yet at the moment, there’s a logjam: The court, which likes to wrap up decisions by the end of June, is way behind schedule, releasing just a trickle of minor cases several weeks in a row. Even if it stretches into early July this year, SCOTUS has teed up a chaotic finale to the term. As soon as the current logjam breaks, the court will dump everything on us all at once.

This approach to judging—to ruling, really, in the monarchical sense—is both disgraceful and unnecessary. It’s disgraceful because regular people cannot possibly absorb the enormous amount of material that is poised to gush out of the court, as the justices surely know, much of it dressed up in legalese to obscure its meaning for nonlawyers. The overwhelming majority of Americans will have no hope of keeping up with the sweeping and complex decisions to come, even if those decisions have direct and negative impacts on their lives. And this inundation is unnecessary because the justices pick their own arbitrary deadline, then fail to manage the docket in a way that allows them to meet that deadline without cutting corners and overwhelming the news cycle with a glut of last-minute bombshells. The conservative supermajority has a checklist to clear, and it won’t temper its agenda to accommodate for a (gratuitously) tight timeline. Its smash-and-grab attitude toward the law requires aggressive, immediate intervention in cases that the court has no good reason to hear. And so this June, and maybe July, is shaping up to be an unprecedented season of ceaseless SCOTUS mayhem.

A glimpse at the term’s remaining cases shows what a nightmare we’re in for. The justices are preparing to hand down roughly 14 extraordinarily high-profile opinions, triple or quadruple the number of an ordinary term. A decade ago, June’s biggest decision was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, allowing corporations to limit contraceptive coverage for employees; this year, there are at least a half-dozen cases that stand to eclipse Hobby Lobby in terms of impact and controversy. (Maybe a lot more, depending on how far the supermajority swings right.) ................(more)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-june-docket-disaster-alito-roberts.html




62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up (Original Post) marmar Jun 11 OP
They need to stop accepting more lawsuits they can handle. jimfields33 Jun 11 #1
They have done less work than in teh past. Old Crank Jun 11 #10
And still not able to keep up. Sad. jimfields33 Jun 11 #17
Nice job if you can get it, 'eh? calimary Jun 11 #51
And not accept ludicrous give the convicted felon immunity ones. GreenWave Jun 11 #2
I can't wait to see how they rule that gab13by13 Jun 11 #3
Anybody who is not in favor of expanding this court beyond these corrupt partisan activists is pretty obtuse. Goodheart Jun 11 #4
I wish we would have a house and senate with COURAGE to start impeaching the republican appointed justices for BComplex Jun 11 #6
Outlaw the Voting Rights Act?? wnylib Jun 11 #11
oops! I meant put the voting rights act back to it's original form, not the way the court has BComplex Jun 11 #20
Guess I'm just obtuse, because I don't support packing the Court. I do support voting for Democrats Silent Type Jun 11 #7
You keep telling yourself that until they take women's voting rights away. Then they have a permanent majority. onecaliberal Jun 11 #9
Packing the Court ain't gonna stop that, sorry. We lost the most important election in our lifetime by not showing Silent Type Jun 11 #12
Making the court representative of america is not packing the court. If they don't have the votes, it's stops onecaliberal Jun 11 #13
Hey, I understand the anger. But packing the Court is a pipe dream. If you somehow suceed, I'll celebrate. Silent Type Jun 11 #18
I don't understand. You'll celebrate something you're opposed to? Goodheart Jun 11 #22
Have a good day. Silent Type Jun 11 #23
We don' t have to "pack the courts" slightlv Jun 11 #58
Please let me know when someone in an official capacity proposes that. Until then, I'll continue skeptical. Silent Type Jun 11 #59
Umm...Hilary won the popular vote by a huge majority. It was just a few states where not enough people BComplex Jun 11 #21
Unfortunately, we have the Electoral College. Popular vote doesn't elect our Prez. Doubt that is going to change either. Silent Type Jun 11 #24
It's not just the EC. It's the Senate. Algernon Moncrieff Jun 11 #32
Agree, but there is no chance of it changing within the next 4 decades or so. Silent Type Jun 11 #34
... littlemissmartypants Jun 11 #49
Which really stinks! Prof. Toru Tanaka Jun 11 #43
Totally agree. But, there is little chance it will change. Silent Type Jun 11 #46
Proudly obtuse Nasruddin Jun 11 #25
I am all for term limits on the Supreme Court. Prof. Toru Tanaka Jun 11 #44
We have nine justices because there were once nine circuit courts. There are now 12 circuit courts; ergo ... OMGWTF Jun 11 #29
I think there should be enough justices that two or three Bettie Jun 11 #41
That's an advantage I hadn't even considered Goodheart Jun 11 #47
Makes me so angry DownriverDem Jun 11 #5
buy who and what et tu Jun 11 #8
What do they have planned for the homeless? KS Toronado Jun 11 #14
Prison? budkin Jun 11 #37
Some probably wouldn't mind it. Xolodno Jun 11 #57
Prison or camps Bettie Jun 11 #42
Slave labor might be correct, they been saying "The South shall rise again" KS Toronado Jun 11 #48
Prisons and slave labor,... magicarpet Jun 11 #54
There were some other decisions in 2014. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 11 #15
In 1963, USSC decided on 377 cases. So far this year, 31 OnlinePoker Jun 11 #16
It takes longer to spin up decision whole cloth out of thin air TheKentuckian Jun 11 #36
Every single decision will help their master Farmer-Rick Jun 11 #19
I heard the recorded conversation with Alito's wife. Arne Jun 11 #28
It's time to just ignore them MsLeopard Jun 11 #26
To some extent, that is already happening. keep_left Jun 11 #33
The GOP strategy to take over the court was successful. And the court is wasting no time in Martin68 Jun 11 #27
KnR Hekate Jun 11 #30
Now for the long vacation. THis court id disgusting. Paper Roses Jun 11 #31
I think any justice who was installed by a convicted felon and traitor should be booted out Bayard Jun 11 #35
There is virtually no likelihood of ever having sufficient TheKentuckian Jun 11 #38
Two or three of them may wish to retire... returnee Jun 11 #39
As per Susan Sarandon, this is just the Socialist revolution starting. Oneironaut Jun 11 #40
K&R UTUSN Jun 11 #45
We have to alter the SC IbogaProject Jun 11 #50
What the roque Justices can never plan on is Karma. pwb Jun 11 #52
Logjam you say. Sounds like a good reason to add six or more justices to the court. Jakes Progress Jun 11 #53
They are corrupt... Quanto Magnus Jun 11 #55
Every Democrat or person on the Left who didn't vote for Hillary in the battleground states in '16, elocs Jun 11 #56
Further Reason for Court Reform Desert Dog Jun 11 #60
An encapsulated version of how and where SCOTUS is today; explained by Jamie Raskin Good Dog Jun 12 #61
Nothing will change SARose Jun 12 #62

jimfields33

(16,759 posts)
1. They need to stop accepting more lawsuits they can handle.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 09:27 AM
Jun 11

June has always been a month that biggies drop. Maybe accept three or four instead of 13 or whatever. Makes sense.

Old Crank

(3,878 posts)
10. They have done less work than in teh past.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:51 AM
Jun 11

The court has accepted fewer cases than almost anytime in history.

gab13by13

(22,113 posts)
3. I can't wait to see how they rule that
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 09:48 AM
Jun 11

the attack on the Capitol did not obstruct an official proceeding of Congress. Just imagine the turmoil that decision will cause.

Goodheart

(5,401 posts)
4. Anybody who is not in favor of expanding this court beyond these corrupt partisan activists is pretty obtuse.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 09:54 AM
Jun 11

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

The most frequent argument I hear is "well, the OTHER side will just expand it again when THEY get in power." That right there is allowing yourself to be bullied and slapped because somebody in the future might bully and slap you again.

Aside from the political majority aspect of the question, the biggest argument FOR expansion would be to fight the corruption that this limited number of "justices" so obviously encourages. Each of their market (i..e. bribe) values diminishes with each additional member on the bench.





BComplex

(8,290 posts)
6. I wish we would have a house and senate with COURAGE to start impeaching the republican appointed justices for
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:26 AM
Jun 11

their lies and obfuscation during their confirmations. And someone needs to immediately outlaw the Voting Rights Act, Dobbs and Citizens United rulings, and put the ethics requirements on the court.

BComplex

(8,290 posts)
20. oops! I meant put the voting rights act back to it's original form, not the way the court has
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:24 AM
Jun 11

destroyed it with their subsequent rulings.

Silent Type

(3,628 posts)
7. Guess I'm just obtuse, because I don't support packing the Court. I do support voting for Democrats
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:32 AM
Jun 11

so that we can impeach the MFers.

onecaliberal

(33,444 posts)
9. You keep telling yourself that until they take women's voting rights away. Then they have a permanent majority.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:48 AM
Jun 11

They will have already wholesale thrown old people on the streets by taking their social security away.

Silent Type

(3,628 posts)
12. Packing the Court ain't gonna stop that, sorry. We lost the most important election in our lifetime by not showing
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:01 AM
Jun 11

up at polls, costing us 3 Justices. Don't think we can rectify that by packing court. It's a pipe dream at best.

onecaliberal

(33,444 posts)
13. Making the court representative of america is not packing the court. If they don't have the votes, it's stops
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:05 AM
Jun 11

everything. I am tired of men telling me that I can't do anything about them making women second class incubators to be ruled by the soulless.

Silent Type

(3,628 posts)
18. Hey, I understand the anger. But packing the Court is a pipe dream. If you somehow suceed, I'll celebrate.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:20 AM
Jun 11

Goodheart

(5,401 posts)
22. I don't understand. You'll celebrate something you're opposed to?
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:25 AM
Jun 11

Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

A pipe dream? I don't think so. All it would take is for Democrats to gain control of Congress and a President who is fed up with bullshit corrupt partisan activism.

slightlv

(3,184 posts)
58. We don' t have to "pack the courts"
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 07:40 PM
Jun 11

we DO have to make it more representative of the United States. Obviously, with all the decisions they've entered so far that have people screaming, it is NOT representative!

In addition, it is so far out of whack with the number of circuits we have, we absolutely need to have more SCOTUS judges just for fair representation of each circuit. That's not packing the court. That's logical and practical. That was even mentioned by the Commission Biden set up at the beginning of his term. Just because he didn't want to touch the courts (the one thing I really DO ding him on), it doesn't make it null and void. It makes it a mistake and WRONG.

And don't give me the crap about more democrats. We NEVER have enough Democrats, it seems. That's always the answer whenever we bring up anything that needs to be changed. Any one of us who was screaming about the courts and what they were going to do to women and minorities years ago has heard the same damn refrain over and over and over again. We're just not listening to it anymore. I'm sorry if that seems harsh... but I'm a woman; my SS is less because of the fact in the work world I inhabited from the 70's through the early 2000's, women were paid thousands less per year for the exact same work the guy next to me was doing... and I was a hell of a lot better at it. I lived during the time when women did not have the right to a damned credit card in their name. My grandmother fought for the right to vote. If the damned Magat squeaky wheel gets noticed and acted upon, well, we ain't gonna shut up now. We are many. Hell, we might even be Legion, and the world can't do without us. Just try it.

Silent Type

(3,628 posts)
59. Please let me know when someone in an official capacity proposes that. Until then, I'll continue skeptical.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 07:56 PM
Jun 11

Unfortunately, all the screaming did absolutely nothing. It didn't stop trump from being elected over someone highly qualified, or getting 3 Justices on the Court. We lost, and the likely reason -- when all is said and done about Comey, trump, etc. -- is people screaming and not voting for Clinton because they were mad their candidates got eliminated in the primaries.

As too your other issues, I likely agree with you, but packing the court or whatever won't change any of that.

BComplex

(8,290 posts)
21. Umm...Hilary won the popular vote by a huge majority. It was just a few states where not enough people
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:25 AM
Jun 11

showed up.

Silent Type

(3,628 posts)
24. Unfortunately, we have the Electoral College. Popular vote doesn't elect our Prez. Doubt that is going to change either.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:29 AM
Jun 11

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,801 posts)
32. It's not just the EC. It's the Senate.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:00 PM
Jun 11

I took civics just like you did, and I get the whole big state / small state thing, but now it's reached a ridiculous extreme.

Realistically, California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia should look at busting up into smaller states of about 1M people each. As it stands now, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana have way too much power.

Prof. Toru Tanaka

(2,074 posts)
43. Which really stinks!
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 02:53 PM
Jun 11

I cannot stand the EC; it is archaic and an anachronism. The fact that the highest office in our land can be won by a candidate that does not win the popular vote is ludicrous.

Nasruddin

(763 posts)
25. Proudly obtuse
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:31 AM
Jun 11

We need some real reform, not starting a grifter packing tit for tat war.

I would rather rehab the system from top to bottom but the constitutional issues will obviously make that very difficult.

A lot of problems are solved by a good term limits scheme. If possible, applied to the whole federal judiciary.
Perhaps, if judges cannot be removed from office except via the broken constitutional measures, they can be moved from post to post after a term. If they don't like it, they can quit.

Another possibility is to make the number of justices flexible, and give every presidential term (say) 2 positions they can add. It would be better yet if each presidential term got 1 free removal too. Senate obfuscation remains a problem.

I don't understand how to deal with the accountability problem without constitutional work. We have a corrupt court and a corrupted judicial system from top to bottom that can crime with near impunity (my guess is that the supreme court justices can do whatever they want and their team will close ranks and intervene if any of them are busted - as we are seeing hints of).

Congress can limit the scope of the supreme court but that will surely lead to a constitutional battle. But it should do this. Probably never would.

OMGWTF

(4,074 posts)
29. We have nine justices because there were once nine circuit courts. There are now 12 circuit courts; ergo ...
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:43 AM
Jun 11

Bettie

(16,260 posts)
41. I think there should be enough justices that two or three
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 01:10 PM
Jun 11

panels can hear cases (randomly chosen panels) to allow for the greater number of cases that a much larger population brings.

Plus, randomly chosen panels make it much harder to tailor an argument to a specific justice.

Goodheart

(5,401 posts)
47. That's an advantage I hadn't even considered
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 03:30 PM
Jun 11

If there were, say, 21 justices and 9 were chosen at random for each case.... that would be far less opportunity for corruption.

DownriverDem

(6,283 posts)
5. Makes me so angry
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:05 AM
Jun 11

at all the "but, but, but Hillary folks". I can't help but think of all the warnings we gave them when it came to the Fed Court judges & SC. I never hear of them now.

et tu

(1,135 posts)
8. buy who and what
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 10:32 AM
Jun 11

you can now for biden's second term
will bring a change to the sc. so get'em
while you still can trillionaires

KS Toronado

(17,929 posts)
14. What do they have planned for the homeless?
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:06 AM
Jun 11

Reeducation centers out of sight in the country where they can grow their own food?

Xolodno

(6,465 posts)
57. Some probably wouldn't mind it.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 06:30 PM
Jun 11

Best man at my wedding was terrible with money and every business he did afterwards. Wife eventually left him. He moved up to Oregon where his parents retired and decided to give it a go. Turns out he had a severe mental health issue and refused to acknowledge it. Ended up homeless and living in a tent. He eventually did something stupid and ended up in jail.

When he was about to be released, he asked if he could stay. He got three square meals a day, roof over his head, a bed away from the elements, entertainment, etc. Sad really, that he thinks this is the best for him after two failed marriages, bankruptcies, failed businesses, etc. Showed a lot of promise in life in his early years, but life was not kind to him. Top it off, lived in a well to do neighborhood, good schools, plenty of privilege, etc. Where as myself, I was the opposite.

magicarpet

(14,816 posts)
54. Prisons and slave labor,...
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 04:31 PM
Jun 11

... now that would be a major boost for the economy. Better than the .17cents an hour paid Chinese labor.
Free labor ain't nothing to sneeze at,.. just ask djt.

OnlinePoker

(5,740 posts)
16. In 1963, USSC decided on 377 cases. So far this year, 31
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:11 AM
Jun 11

Have the cases got more complex or has the court got so politically entrenched they can't do the work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases_decided_by_year

TheKentuckian

(25,178 posts)
36. It takes longer to spin up decision whole cloth out of thin air
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:11 PM
Jun 11

than it does to adjudicate based on actual law and precedent?

Farmer-Rick

(10,420 posts)
19. Every single decision will help their master
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:22 AM
Jun 11

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The convicted felon. It will help him get elected.

The Supremes are on the path to hell. They got nothing to do with god. It's all about fascism and crushing the majority of Americans. They will make us bow at their feet.

Arne

(2,716 posts)
28. I heard the recorded conversation with Alito's wife.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:41 AM
Jun 11

She clearly stated that she is completely
Coo Coo for Ko Ko puffs.

MsLeopard

(1,271 posts)
26. It's time to just ignore them
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:36 AM
Jun 11

Red states will make life horrible for their citizens because they can. And they’re deranged. Blue states can tell them to go fuck themselves and not enforce their Christian nationalist BS. In time we’ll probably something akin to underground railroads helping people flee red state fascism once they see it up close. I may be dreaming, but I just can’t see people living the hell they want for us without a fight.

keep_left

(1,873 posts)
33. To some extent, that is already happening.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:02 PM
Jun 11

However, it can be argued that this will inflame secessionist movements in the US (although such movements have always existed).

It has been discussed here on a few occasions that should Trump be re-elected to another term, it is likely that nascent secessionist movements already underway in a few states will spread to many others. At that point, it is anyone's guess what the outcome would be. These secessionist tendencies can already be seen in at least two small but significant ways: cannabis legalization (states ignoring Federal drug laws and scheduling), and the state-by-state patchwork of legal abortion in the aftermath of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision.

https://democraticunderground.com/100219019557#post2

Martin68

(23,515 posts)
27. The GOP strategy to take over the court was successful. And the court is wasting no time in
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:38 AM
Jun 11

remaking our entire democracy into a theocratic totalitarian state. We are in trouble if we can't stop either the court's unconstitutional agenda or Donald Trump's illegitimate election.

Paper Roses

(7,486 posts)
31. Now for the long vacation. THis court id disgusting.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 11:57 AM
Jun 11

Leaving the American citizens with this mess is not excusable. We need to have time to digest the rulings and add our thoughts to the decisions.
What a biased and crooked court.
Yes, I'm mad as heck about this.
So biased in favor of the MAGA members.

Bayard

(22,629 posts)
35. I think any justice who was installed by a convicted felon and traitor should be booted out
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:05 PM
Jun 11

Then we fill those vacancies with good, ethical justices. No need to expand the court.

TheKentuckian

(25,178 posts)
38. There is virtually no likelihood of ever having sufficient
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:19 PM
Jun 11

Senators to remove them.

Meanwhile, expansion is possible with a WILLING simple majority.

Pursuit of a delusional pipedream constructed of the elusive element Unobtainium over a viable and straight path is just backdoor support for the existing conditions to be perpetrated.

67 to remove is not coming o'er any hill anywhere.

returnee

(98 posts)
39. Two or three of them may wish to retire...
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 12:46 PM
Jun 11

…and do as much damage as possible before leaving. We can also infer that the fascist powers that be will do whatever they can to get TSF Convict back into office.

Oneironaut

(5,610 posts)
40. As per Susan Sarandon, this is just the Socialist revolution starting.
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 01:06 PM
Jun 11

Giving us a heavily Conservative Supreme Court is actually a good thing, because, Socialism will come about somehow. Yay!

/s

IbogaProject

(2,951 posts)
50. We have to alter the SC
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 04:08 PM
Jun 11

The angles are, to expand, to change the scope of what they can do and finally I've seen a suggestion for another apellet level. A suggestion for expansion is go to 15 so no SC justice does more than one circuit. There would be 5 R and 5 D and those ten would nominate candidates for the 5 non aligned slots. And of course a code of ethics plus some kind of age or term limit. I don't like that limit idea but if well crafted I could warm up to it.

Quanto Magnus

(925 posts)
55. They are corrupt...
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 04:34 PM
Jun 11

the decisions that they come out with are going to be demonstrative of that corruption. They are waiting as long as they can, because they know how corrupt they are.... The bigger the delay the better it will be for them and their corrupt associates (aka the MAGAt party).

elocs

(22,783 posts)
56. Every Democrat or person on the Left who didn't vote for Hillary in the battleground states in '16,
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 05:51 PM
Jun 11

take a bow because this is all on your plate.
Here in Wisconsin in '16, Jill Stein of the Green Party received more votes than Trump's margin of victory here and those votes came from the Left, not Republicans. But then what could go wrong with voting for a 3rd party candidate? Well, we found out and the bad news is that there will be ones who do it again this year.

Desert Dog

(77 posts)
60. Further Reason for Court Reform
Tue Jun 11, 2024, 08:36 PM
Jun 11

They can't keep up and do their work in a timely manner. Why are they holding up decisions that have already been made? Millions in Gifts. Not near enough recusals. Political hack judges who do political events on the weekends.

Past time to write some rules for these clowns and give them some more help to get their work done.

Biden and the Senate should be warning these people in the press that if they don't clean it up - we will do it after the election.

I hope Biden wins and has the guts to rewrite the court rules. The political goons have gone so overboard that a comprehensive response is warranted. Biden should already be laying some ground work with minimal specifics. "Court Reform" - "Justice for All".. Maybe after the debates. People hate this court and hacks that inhabit it.

Good Dog

(6 posts)
61. An encapsulated version of how and where SCOTUS is today; explained by Jamie Raskin
Wed Jun 12, 2024, 07:02 AM
Jun 12

If you listen to this there is really nothing I need to say:

SARose

(418 posts)
62. Nothing will change
Wed Jun 12, 2024, 07:58 AM
Jun 12

Until folks like Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are held to account.

Just why do these folks get to ignore a subpoena from the Senate?

Congress must address the issue of a handful of rich, white men corrupting our courts.

Congress must put some teeth into subpoenas.

In my opinion, nothing will change until the corruption is cleaned up.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court Has Pla...