Whether the cross-appeal rule is jurisdictional or mandatory, or admits of exceptions

QUESTION PRESENTED As this Court has recognized, “it takes a cross-appeal to justify a remedy in favor of an appellee.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2008). This is an “inveterate and certain” rule, and this Court has never recognized any exception to it. Ibid. Still, “[t]he cases are in disarray.” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3904. Five Circuits adhere to Greenlaw and refuse to find exceptions to application of the cross-appeal rule (properly invoked) on the basis that it is either jurisdictional or at least mandatory, while another six circuits (including the Second Circuit in the decision below) all but ignore Greenlaw to hold that this rule is discretionary and may be disregarded by an appellate court in appropriate circumstances. The question presented is: 1. Whether the cross-appeal rule, which prohibits the granting of a remedy in favor of an appellee absent the filing of a cross-appeal, is jurisdictional or otherwise mandatory, or whether it admits of any exception, including, inter alia, for remands or changes in substantive law.