Brady's cert petition is not due in a week, it's due more than two months from now. And the Supreme Court is not in the error correction business; it's unlikely to hold that, yes, there is right to procedural fairness (as the Second Circuit assumed), but the Second Circuit incorrectly applied the standard. If anything, if it wants to require procedural fairness AND describe the standard in Peterson, it might hold the Brady case until its decision, and then if it reverses Peterson GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand) Brady. If it affirms Peterson, it would then just deny Brady's petition.The thing is that the Brady case and Peterson case arise at the same time, so they provide the Court a vehicle to address the entire issue. They do not have to choose just one case, and if they are to address the fundamental fairness point, they would take Both cases. Brady's cert is due in a week, so Olson has a bit of time to recast the cert in the "fundamental fairness" realm (that Feinberg's amicus addressed), bundle it with the Peterson cert that will be filed in a month. Because the Second Circuit decided fundamental fairness even without Berman addressing it, it allows the Supreme Court to write, if they are so inclined, and address a couple of applications of the concept.
And that's assuming the NFLPA even petitions in Brady.