JOURNAL ARTICLE

An Academic's View of Supreme Court Advocacy.

  • Published In: Appellate Practice Journal, 2025, v. 44, n. 2. P. 19 1 of 3

  • Database: Academic Search Ultimate 2 of 3

  • Authored By: Dodson, Scott 3 of 3

Abstract

The article discusses the author's scholarly work on civil procedure and federal jurisdiction, particularly focusing on jurisdictional limits such as filing deadlines. It highlights a specific case involving Stuart Harrow, a former Department of Defense employee, who faced challenges in appealing a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board due to a jurisdictional deadline. The author represented Harrow pro bono in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which ultimately resulted in a unanimous 9-0 reversal of the Federal Circuit's decision. The article emphasizes the importance of textual interpretation and precedent in judicial decision-making while noting the author's ongoing interest in theoretical aspects of jurisdictionality. [Extracted from the article]

Additional Information

  • Source:Appellate Practice Journal. 2025/04, Vol. 44, Issue 2, p19
  • Document Type:Article
  • Subject Area:Law
  • Publication Date:2025
  • ISSN:1937-2965
  • Accession Number:185295048
  • Copyright Statement:Copyright of Appellate Practice Journal is the property of American Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Looking to go deeper into this topic? Look for more articles on EBSCOhost.