During the oral argument in Royal Camin USA v. Wullschleger, there was a discussion about the weight the Court should give to unanimity on a question among the lower courts of appeals. The lower courts have interpreted the post-removal amendment of a complaint in a certain way, but there is an argument that the relevant statute requires a different outcome.
Justice Kagan expressed her skepticism towards INS v. Chadha, the case where the Court ruled that a unicameral legislative veto is unconstitutional.
From the transcript:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, we have had cases where we came out differently than every court of appeals, right?
MR. KELLER: Yes, you have, Mr. Chief Justice.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Like what?
MR. KELLER: I think there are—that’s a great question.
(Laughter.)
MR. KELLER: And none spring to mind, but I am positive that I can find some.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Central Bank?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I mean, it’s pretty bold to take a position without knowing one.
MR. KELLER: Fair. Mea culpa.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Was that the case in Chadha?
MR. KELLER: INS versus Chadha?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. KELLER: I—I don’t know. I apologize.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Somebody will check. I just—
JUSTICE KAGAN: Gosh, I’m not sure which way that cuts.
(Laughter.)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I’m not sure that’s true. I just have it in the back of my mind, but—okay.
