There is precedent for cases to be reargued when new justice joins Supreme Court, says law expert

Attorney Alan Morrison on Tuesday said that there is a precedent for Supreme Court cases to be reargued when a new justice joins the high court.

“I remember when Justice Thomas was confirmed, it was not until quite late after the first of October. There were several cases that were reargued when he was there, so that’s pretty common,” Morrison, a law professor at George Washington University, told Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball and Ned Ryun on “Rising.” 

Morrison pointed to Gundy v. the U.S., which is currently pending before the high court, as an example of a case that will most likely be reargued when a ninth justice joins the court.

The case questions whether the attorney general can issue regulations in accordance with the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA).

“I would be surprised if this case doesn’t get a rehearing,” he said.

His comments come a day after the Supreme Court began a new term on Monday with just eight sitting judges.

Multiple sexual misconduct allegations against nominee Brett Kavanaugh have upended his confirmation process, leaving the court vulnerable to four-to-four splits.

Kavanaugh’s presence on the court would cause the body to lean more conservative. Currently, there are four justices that were appointed by a Republican president and four that were appointed by a Democratic president.

However, Morrison said that justices reach consensus on a significant amount of cases each year.

“We have to remember that many of the cases … probably a third or more are unanimous decisions every year in the court. And so there are likely to be a number of those decisions where cases will not have to be reargued,” he continued.