Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them
Trump Pursues Rare Supreme Court Rehearings for Recent Rulings
Trump seeks do overs at a Supreme - President Donald Trump has emerged as a staunch advocate for second chances within the highest court in the land. Following the conclusion of the Supreme Court's term last week, which featured numerous significant opinions, the president and his legal advisors have proposed utilizing an uncommon procedural mechanism. This approach would enable the justices to revisit several decisions they recently issued, even though such requests have proven unsuccessful in over half of all attempts during the past fifty years.
Multiple Rehearing Requests Filed
Trump's legal representatives have already submitted formal petitions requesting the court reconsider its refusal to hear an appeal concerning a $5 million judgment. That verdict determined the president had both sexually abused and defamed magazine writer E. Jean Carroll. Additionally, on Wednesday, Trump publicly committed to requesting that the Supreme Court reverse its ruling which terminated his executive order regarding birthright citizenship.
"The Supreme Court's ruling is wrong," Trump declared on his social media platform. "I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don't change their absolutely insane decision."
According to Supreme Court regulations, parties possess a twenty-five-day window following any decision to submit rehearing petitions. However, judicial practice demonstrates that the court typically approves such motions only when substantial new information emerges after a ruling, rather than when the defeated party merely disagrees with the result.
Legal Experts Express Skepticism
"The court essentially never grants those motions," explained Daniel Epps, a Washington University law professor who maintains close observation of Supreme Court proceedings. "It only would do so in a case where a party could bring to the court something material, like a critical fact, that the justices were unaware of."
Epps further analyzed the situation, noting, "I think what's happening is that Trump is very mad about the decisions and he is going to order the solicitor general's office to take all possible measures but there is no hope of success here."
The birthright citizenship matter received particular attention when the court delivered a 6-3 decision on June 30, effectively nullifying Trump's attempt to terminate automatic citizenship through executive action. Five justices determined the order contravened the citizenship provision contained within the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while finding the order constitutionally permissible, concluded that federal immigration legislation nonetheless prohibited it.
Historical Precedents for Rehearings
The most recent instance of the Supreme Court considering a rehearing request for an argued appeal occurred in 1965. That case, Maryland v. US, centered on a 1958 aviation collision between a commercial aircraft and a Maryland National Guard training flight. The central question involved whether plaintiffs could pursue damages against the federal government.
The court initially determined in 1965 that the pilot served as a Maryland state employee rather than a federal government worker. Plaintiffs contended that lower courts had examined only the pilot's liability while neglecting government air traffic controllers. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted this distinct issue to proceed through the lower judicial system.
"It is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration," stated Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. "When it does so, it is typically because some vital information was not before it originally." Dorf added, "Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail."
The Department of Justice declined to address questions regarding Trump's commitment to pursuing a rehearing. While Trump's prospects appear marginally improved in the Carroll matter based on historical patterns, success remains improbable. His attorneys recently urged the Supreme Court to revisit its denial of the appeal concerning the $5 million Carroll verdict. They have also petitioned lower courts to postpone the payment while the justices evaluate this request.
Trump has indicated plans to appeal a separate Carroll-related case and suggested the Supreme Court might consider both matters simultaneously. However, his legal team previously made this proposal in correspondence with the court last month. Despite this recommendation, the court denied the appeal unanimously last week. Carroll's attorneys chose not to provide comments for this report.
Reconsiderations of decisions to deny appeals remain somewhat uncommon but represent one of the few remaining avenues for parties seeking to challenge final Supreme Court determinations without waiting for entirely new cases to arise.