In the case of Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. Tex., the Supreme Court ordered the parties to “address at oral argument the arguments raised in the brief of Professor Stephen E. Sachs as amicus curiae in support of neither party.”

Today that case was argued, and Sachs was mentioned over and over again. I counted 7 mentions of his name spelled correctly as a singular (Sachs),  7 times as a possessive (Sachs’), once as an alternate spelling of the possessive (Sachs’s), and twice incorrectly as a possessive (Sach’s).

Here are shoutouts from RBG:

And that’s what 12 Professor Sachs’s view leaves out, because the result, 13 as you say, is — it’s only dismissal. No transfer.

Breyer:

But then one thing Professor Sachs says does  bother me, that if we take your approach then how do we 19 deal with the problem of removal? I mean, you can only remove a case to a court which is in the district where the person — the plaintiff filed. …

So that argues to me that we ought to either take the 1404 approach or we ought to take Professor Sachs’ approach, unless you have an answer to that.

Alito:

Can I ask you this about the Professor Sachs’ argument? Doesn’t it lead to the consequence — doesn’t it show that — wouldn’t it mean that Justice Scalia’s dissent was correct in Stewart and the majority was wrong in Stewart?

Kagan:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Professor Sachs says that in the case of any disputed facts on a 12(b)(6), you would have to have a trial. Do you agree with that?

4 Justices!

And, in class DC-reading, he gets 9 lines in the index!