How to get a new pair of court shoes on sale next month
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Supreme Court justices can take on more cases in their lifetimes, starting with a pair of high-profile cases in March.
That could bring a flood of cases and demand for court shoes to be made in the next 12 months, according to a new report from the law firm BakerHostetler LLP.
The high-stakes cases could include the upcoming marriage of same-sex couples and a case about whether a gun owner can keep his or her gun on the premises of a shooting range.
The law firm’s report predicts demand for the court shoes will exceed the supply in 2019.
The Supreme Courts shoes are made from calfskin and leather and are intended to be worn at the Supreme Courts by justices in courtrooms.
The shoes will be available on the court’s website and at select retailers and online stores starting this spring, according the report.
The firm predicts demand will exceed supply by the end of 2019.
In addition to the high-demand cases, the firm predicts a spate of lower-profile legal cases will also make their way into courtrooms, including the case involving a Florida man who said he was denied medical care after being shot in the head in January.
BakerHostettler also predicts demand at the high court will outstrip supply, and that demand for Supreme Court cases will exceed demand for shoes, by 2023.
The new reports comes as the court is poised to take on several high-level legal cases in its next term, including a challenge to a state law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people, the issue of the Affordable Care Act, and a lawsuit that seeks to overturn a court ruling that says a woman who has an abortion should be allowed to keep her abortion rights.
The court is set to take a year-long break before it resumes oral arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act in late February.
The court also could take on a case involving whether a man who shot and killed his girlfriend was allowed to be held on a death row without being able to see a psychiatrist.
BakerHostettlers report does not include any predictions on what will happen in the high courts when the justices take on the high cases, including whether justices will take on an appeal in one of the high litigation cases.
The report does, however, give a number of possible outcomes.
First, the court could rule in favor of a gay couple seeking to overturn an earlier decision by the state of Ohio.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in October that the couple should be granted the right to sue the state over its same-gender marriage ban.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in the fall.
Second, the justices could rule against the state in the case of a man and woman who were married in California, the report said.
The men filed suit in June, alleging that the state’s marriage laws violate their constitutional rights.
Third, the high justices could decide in favor a lesbian couple seeking marriage equality in California.
The woman filed suit last week in California’s Supreme Court seeking to stop California’s marriage equality law, arguing that it violates her right to privacy.
Fourth, the Supreme court could decide to reverse a decision by a federal judge in Oregon that allowed a gay man to marry his girlfriend.
Fifth, the highest court could strike down the state law in favor, or overturn, the federal judge’s decision.
The ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Council of the Federal Courts, the nation’s highest court.
Sixth, or at least one justice could decide not to take up the case in a ruling that would not impact the issue in the Supreme courts’ ruling.
Seventh, another high court justice could rule that the high case should be thrown out because it does not meet the requirements for the Supreme level.
Eightth, a justice could take up a case in which a federal appeals court has ruled that the law violates the constitutional rights of a state.
The state of Oregon’s Supreme court had ordered a federal appeal, and then Oregon Gov.
Kate Brown, a Democrat, reversed the decision.
Brown said the federal appeals decision had been based on a “technicality” and that the Oregon law does not violate any constitutional rights or the state constitution.