Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 500.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

455

Opinion of Scalia, J.

bizarre as to permit this Court to declare a “scrivener’s
error”—in believing that individuals will suffer more seri-
ously from delay in the receipt of “vetoed” beneﬁts or tax
savings than corporations will, and therefore according indi-
viduals (but not corporations) expedited review.
It may be
unlikely that this is what Congress actually had in mind; but
it is what Congress said, it is not so absurd as to be an obvi-
ous mistake, and it is therefore the law.

The only individual who has sued, and thus the only appel-
lee who qualiﬁes for expedited review under § 692, is Mike
Cranney. Since § 692 does not confer jurisdiction over the
claims of the other appellees, we must dismiss them, unless
In their com-
we have jurisdiction under another statute.
plaints, appellees sought declaratory relief not only under
§ 692(a), but also under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U. S. C. § 2201,
invoking the District Court’s jurisdiction
under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. After the District Court ruled, the
Government appealed directly to this Court, but it also ﬁled
a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
In light of the Government’s representa-
tion that it desires “[t]o eliminate any possibility that the
district court’s decision might escape review,” Reply Brief
for Appellants 2, n. 1, I would deem its appeal to this Court a
petition for writ of certiorari before judgment, see 28 U. S. C.
§ 2101(e), and grant it. Under this Court’s Rule 11, “[a] peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a
United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered
in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the
case is of such imperative public importance as to justify
deviation from normal appellate practice and to require im-
mediate determination in this Court.”
In light of the public
importance of the issues involved, and the little sense it
would make for the Government to pursue its appeal against
one appellee in this Court and against the others in the
Court of Appeals, the entire case, in my view, qualiﬁes for
certiorari review before judgment.