SG and Texas SG move for argument
Feb 11 2008 Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 11 2008 Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.
I'd interpret these as follows:
Solicitor General of the US would like to argue. Neither side was willing to give him time (you only get 30 minutes in the usual argument, and he's taking positions that are not pleasing to either side), so he wants argument with his own time allocation. Divided argument means, I assume, that two people will argue for the SG.
Texas SG's motion is more interesting. They want the same (without divided argument). My guess is that the minute they saw the US AG's move they whipped this motion out. Normally, if an amicus wants to argue the Court's going to say it's on time from the party they're supporting. But with the SG asking for its own time, Texas has a shot at this motion.
UPDATE: looks as if Heller agreed to give Texas part of their time, then the SG moved for their own (separate) time of 15 minutes. I for one find it annoying. (1) If Heller has gven up 10 minutes, why wouldn't the SG ask DC to give it ten minutes? (2) 15 minutes? That's 50% of what a party gets. (3) To defend their position that 2A is an individual right is one thing -- but Heller & Texas will do that. I rather suspect most of that 15 will be devoted to arguing for a lax standard of review.
The discrepancy between #s of briefs on the two sites is apparently due to the fact the Supreme Ct doesn't show them on its website until after they have been sent to an anthrax screening place, whereas the pdfs are available right now. They may stock up several days' worth before sending them.