Question not identified.

involve multiple issues of constitutional law, implicating the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, the nondelegation doctrine, and the President’s removal power. The parties also must address what statutory provisions, if any, the Court should sever and disregard in order to remedy any constitutional violation. Given the multiple questions presented and the complexity of the legal issues involved, the word limits provided by this Court’s Rules would be inadequate to allow for a thorough airing of the issues. The Solicitor General therefore requests leave for the petitioner to file an opening brief of no more than 19,000 words, for the respondents to file a response brief of no more than 19,000 4 words, and for the petitioner to file a reply brief of no more than 9000 words. The Court has previously permitted parties to file briefs of similar or greater length in cases of particular complexity. See, e.g., Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22-506 (2023) (consolidated opening brief of 17,000 words and consolidated reply brief of 9000 words); Haaland v. Brackeen, No. 21-376 (2022) (consolidated opening briefs of 20,000 words each, consolidated response briefs of 22,500 words each, and consolidated reply briefs of 8000 words each); Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 (2018) (opening and response briefs of 20,000 words each and reply brief of 8000 words); Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436 (2017) (consolidated opening brief of 22,500 words and consolidated reply brief of 10,000 words); United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (2015) (opening and response briefs of 20,000 words each and reply brief of 8000 words); Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418 (2015) (consolidated opening briefs of 20,000 words each, consolidated response brief of 22,500 words, and consolidated reply briefs of 8000 words each). Respectfully submitted. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR Solicitor General JULY 2023