The court issued a brief order

18:28 Feb 15 

;-)

18:23 Feb 15 

Translating terms with legal flair,
Rarely easy, quite the affair.
Amidst brief orders, context's king,
Navigating nuances, a challenging thing.
Sometimes, a phrase turns a case,
Lawyers baffled, translators embrace.
Artistry in language, their secret power,
Turning legalese into a comprehensible shower.
On deadline, caffeine-fueled nights,
Reading rulings, parsing rights.
So here's to those who make legal jargon clear,
Translators, in courtrooms, we cheer!

–ChatGPT

17:22 Feb 15 

I've asked my brother-in-law to tell Martin Pengelly that Piotr knows better and brief doesn't mean short.

17:21 Feb 15 

You can lead a horse to water but...

17:24 Feb 14 

Piotr, why did you tell Phil that it "would be fantastic" if he asked the person who wrote/edited the article only to ignore the answer he was given?

Also, in the US, and I didn't mention that because I thought the whole matter was settled, a briefing order is used to set a briefing schedule:
"Therefore, the Court’s initial briefing order, which set a schedule for the filing of
preliminary motions due October 26, 2018 and dispositive motions due November 13,
2018, should remain in effect and this appeal be allowed to proceed deliberatively and
fully without an unnecessary rush which could prejudice the Plaintiff-appellees."
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1628/ML16286A270.pdf

"On June 16, 2022, the Board issued a Notice of Appeal and Order Establishing Briefing Schedule (Briefing Order). The Briefing Order required Complainant to file an opening brief..."
https://www2.epic.org/amicus/opm/OPM-Briefing-Order.pdf

Cf. https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/health-care-schedule-set/

It has nothing to do with a brief (one to two sentence) order, possibly tied to what is known today as the SC's shadow docket.

17:44 Feb 12 

Still munching on popcorn, waiting to see the egg being peeled off a few faces 😂

15:51 Feb 12 

Also agree that there's no need to replace anything here. Just to show he's not alone, here's the NYT's perspective (need to quote from a secondary source, as the original article is behind a paywall):
"[The New York Times] reports that the Justices would not hear arguments, but would 'issue a very brief order announcing the outcome with little or no legal reasoning.'"
https://blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu/iscotus/week-ahead-february-13...

Indirectly confirmed by the following:
"In some cases the justices have taken no action, in some they have issued a brief order and in a few they have written opinions."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/scotus-for-law-students-c...

15:32 Feb 12 

...and the answer is in!

13:19 Feb 12 

philgoddard -It would be fantastic!

12:21 Feb 12 

"The Supreme Court does not hear oral argument in every case. In most cases, after all briefs have been filed, the court reviews them to decide whether oral argument will be helpful in deciding the case. Often, after reviewing the briefs and the record on appeal (the transcript, if one was ordered, and any documents that have been included in an appendix or transferred from the trial court), the Supreme Court decides that oral argument is not necessary to make a decision in the case. When this happens, the court issues a brief order explaining its reasons for either affirming or reversing the trial court. In fact, most cases are decided without oral argument."
https://www.courts.nh.gov/node/33601

Compare with this:
"If your case is not scheduled for oral argument, the Supreme Court will discuss it at one of its regular conferences and will decide whether to affirm or reverse the trial court’s decision. A short order explaining the Supreme Court's reasons will generally be issued within a week of the court's conference."
https://www.courts.nh.gov/node/33606

Best

12:19 Feb 12 

...that would be great; just wondering whether it's necessary. E.g.:
"In a very brief order, the court agreed to set this super fast briefing schedule and arguments for November 1st in United States v. Texas and Whole Women’s Health V. Jackson. For what it’s worth."
https://slate.com/transcripts/VGY2SU5FdnozbXI3c0o3emE1Y3hsVm...

"Late Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down a very brief order establishing that sellers of 'ghost guns,' weapons that are sold dismantled in ready-to-assemble kits, must comply with the same gun safety laws and anti-crime laws as any other gun seller."
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/17/23919988/supreme-court...

There are many more examples to back up Phil's assertion; "very brief" can hardly mean anything else than "very short."

[...]

11:54 Feb 12 

philgoddard -It would be fantastic!

10:40 Feb 12 

I’ve got my popcorn 👌

05:00 Feb 12 

My brother-in-law is a journalist with The Guardian, and his immediate editor wrote the article. He'll ask him in the morning. I'll be happy to back down if I'm wrong.

Of course, we're assuming that this is indeed an English-English question - it's written in Polish. Google Translate tells me it means 'I would like to ask for help in translating this term'.

21:21 Feb 11 

is very good at making up stories, IMO "brief" has its root in briefing (notifying) the parties, and not in "brevity".

21:09 Feb 11 

"In the context provided, a "brief order" issued by the U.S. Supreme Court refers to a short, formal decision or directive that announces a specific action without providing a detailed explanation or reasoning. Typically, a brief order might announce the Court's decision to hear a case, set dates for hearing, stay a lower court's ruling, or make procedural directions. It is concise and to the point, often lacking the extensive legal analysis or commentary found in full opinions or judgments.

In this specific scenario, the "brief order" issued on Friday by the Supreme Court likely contained the decision to take up Donald Trump's appeal and possibly included basic information about the scheduling or procedural aspects of the case, such as the date for oral arguments. This order sets the stage for further proceedings and indicates the Court's willingness to review the lower court's decision under a tight timeline, given the impending presidential primaries and election."

:-)