SCOTUS and 'Confession of Error'

How frequently does SCOTUS refuse to grant cert to a Solicitor General’s petition on the basis of ‘confession of error’? In fact, does SCOTUS ever hear such cases but then declines to vacate the lower court’s judgment)?

I ask because it seems to bring rather unusual, and perhaps unique, motivation and process as means to change law (to this non-lawyer, at least).

In the linked article above, the focus seems to be on the SCOTUS’s punting it directly back to the lower court so doesn’t really answer my questions.

One small bump not just to give my OP another chance but also to explain that my motivation for asking about ‘Confession of Error’ is that it seems ripe for abuse (as seems to have happened to the famous Birdman of Alcatraz).

Sometimes the government may be changing its position as to a point of law because of an underlying change in policy. That’s inherent in democratic, deliberative government.

Sometimes it’s that the government has a hard time speaking with one voice. The Department of Justice tries to maintain uniformity, but at the trial court level, there are probably thousands of cases being litigated by hundreds of lawyers (some specialists, some generalists) over the entire range of federal law. There will inevitably be some discrepancies. There is more central control at the appellate level, but at the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General’s authority to speak for the United States is exclusive, so that office gets to decide when the position taken by some other office of DOJ was wrong.

The government changing its position does not itself change the law. A court still gets the final say. The procedural change described in the article you linked was about which court re-reviews the case first in light of the SG’s confession of error, the Supreme Court or the trial court.