Building on my previous post about United States v. Levin, Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson (yes, same name as in Strawbridge v. Curtiss) interviewed me about how the Court has taken note of the government’s changed positions.
The article is so far beyond a pay wall I can’t even link to it (unless 81 U.S.L.W. 1232 means something to you), so here is a sample:
Beyond the court’s narrow holding, Josh Blackman, an assistant professor at the South Texas College of Law, Houston, told BNA March 4 that “[t]he Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts in particular, has taken note of the government’s inability to explain why [its] position has changed, save for a difference of policy.”
Blackman said that this is an important consideration because “[w]hen the government changes its position during the course of litigation, it frustrates the reliance interests of private parties.”
H/T Greg Sisk, who is also quoted in the article.