CSPAN3 March 26, 2012
>> why did the court take this unusual step of hiring someone to argue an argument that nobody in the case -- >> this goes to the question about jurisdiction. there's at least an argument that the anti-injunction act is jurisdictional. if it is jurisdic they would have to consider it on their own. so they wanted help, they wanted someone to support the position that it is jurisdictional and it doesn't apply. that's why they had toe -- but that procedure having to do things that way, seems to us a very good reason for not construing ambiguous statutes to be jurisdictional. like this o...
Source: archive.org