Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Froud v. Anadarko E&P Co., No. 10-8010, involved plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion to remand their class action. The court of appeals denied the request, holding that, while full briefing of the merits may not be necessary to allow the court to exercise its discretion to permit the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 5, petitioners did not provide any discussion of the merits or the nature or importance of the issues presented by their requested appeal.
As the court wrote: "In order to accept a permissive appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(i) and Rule 5, this court must exercise its discretion. Petitioners have not provided us with a basis on which to exercise such discretion with regard to this appeal. Contrast Hart, 457 F.3d at 678 (granting permission so the court "could address the important question of which party has the burden of establishing jurisdiction when the home-state and local controversy provisions of CAFA are implicated"); Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 527 F.3d 25, 29 (2d Cir. 2008) (entertaining appeal "because the question of whether a state-law deceptive practices claim predicated on the sale of a security is removable under CAFA is important and consequential, and a decision of the question will alleviate uncertainty in the district courts").