U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments · Oyez

Parrish v. United States

·54 min·5 clips

Ms. Rice argues that early notices of appeal should ripen when the appeal clock starts, challenging the Fourth Circuit's interpretation.

This episode presents oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Parrish v. United States. The advocate, Ms. Rice, argues on behalf of the petitioner regarding the procedural rules for filing a notice of appeal. The case centers on the legal principle that prematurely filed notices of appeal can "ripen" and become effective once the appeal clock officially starts. Ms. Rice contends courts have long recognized this "ripening" principle for early-filed notices, citing precedents like *First Tier*, *Lemke*, and *Luckenbach*. She states this principle is consistent with the functional approach to notices of appeal and with the statutory requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). The specific dispute involves a notice filed after a judgment was reopened, with the Fourth Circuit ruling a second notice was required. Ms. Rice argues the Fourth Circuit was wrong to read subsection (c) of the statute as displacing the ripening principle solely in reopening contexts. She asserts the principle should apply uniformly, whether a notice is filed after a final judgment or in relation to a reopening. A key insight is her argument that requiring a "duplicative notice of appeal would serve no conceivable purpose." Justice Thomas questions whether there's a material difference between a premature notice and a duplicate notice. Ms. Rice distinguishes a late-filed notice, citing *Bowles v. Russell* as creating a jurisdictional problem, from a notice that is merely early. She clarifies the notice in question was too late for the original appeal period but was filed prematurely for the new period created by the reopening. This frames the notice as functionally early rather than jurisdictionally defective. The tone is highly formal, technical, and educational, focused on statutory interpretation and procedural doctrine. Listeners interested in civil procedure, appellate practice, or nuanced Supreme Court advocacy would find this episode compelling. Those without a background in law or a specific interest in legal technicalities might find the subject matter too specialized.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments