Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Editor's Note :

Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Sanctuary cities as the next nationwide injunction test case – Steve Vladeck

Opinion analysis: With facts like these … – Heidi Kitrosser

Opinion analysis: Plain Sentencing Guidelines errors "ordinarily" justify relief – Evan Lee

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2018

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: June 2018

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 14, 2018

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Opinions

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Opinions

Orders

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-71	5th Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2018

Issues: (1) Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation; and (2) whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Justices add frog case to merits docket (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Mar 21 2017	Application (16A916) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 14, 2017 to June 29, 2017, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Mar 27 2017	Application (16A916) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 29, 2017.
Jun 06 2017	Application (16A916) to extend further the time from June 29, 2017 to July 13, 2017, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jun 09 2017	Application (16A916) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until July 13, 2017.
Jul 11 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 14, 2017)
Jul 18 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Jul 20 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Markle Interests, LLC.
Jul 26 2017	Waiver of right of respondents Markle Interests, LLC; P & F Lumber Co., 2000, LLC; & PF Monroe Properties, LLC to respond filed.
Aug 04 2017	Blanket Consent filed by respondent- intervenors, Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network on 08/10/2017 VIDED
Aug 09 2017	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 13, 2017, for all respondents
Aug 09 2017	Brief amicus curiae of St. Tammany Parish filed. VIDED.
Aug 11 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of San Jaun County, Utah filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. VIDED.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of The American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Alabama and 17 Additional States filed. VIDED.
Sep 07 2017	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2017.
Oct 06 2017	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 13, 2017, for all respondents.
Nov 13 2017	Brief of respondents Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
Nov 13 2017	Brief of intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network in opposition filed. VIDED
Nov 29 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.
Nov 29 2017	Reply of petitioner Weyerhaeuser Co. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 08 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.
Jan 16 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2018.
Jan 22 2018	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 29 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.
Jan 29 2018	Motion for an extension of time filed.
Jan 30 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Weyerhaeuser Company.
Jan 30 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network
Feb 01 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Markle Interests, LLC, et al..
Feb 02 2018	Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including April 23, 2018.
Apr 23 2018	Brief of petitioner Weyerhaeuser Company filed.
Apr 23 2018	Joint appendix filed (statement of cost filed).
Apr 23 2018	Brief of respondents Markle Interests, LLC, et al. in support of petitioner filed.
Apr 26 2018	Brief amici curiae of Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, et al. filed.
Apr 27 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Apr 27 2018	Brief amicus curiae of St. Tammany Parish Government filed.
Apr 27 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed.
Apr 27 2018	Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Stock Growers Association, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of American Exploration & Production Council, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amicus curiae of San Jaun County, Utah filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of Brief of Alabama and 19 Additional States filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Cause of Action Institute filed.
Apr 30 2018	Brief amici curiae of The American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. filed.
May 02 2018	Motion for an extension of time to file respondents' briefs on the merits filed.
May 04 2018	Motion to extend the time to file respondents' briefs on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including June 29, 2018.

Featured Posts

Sanctuary cities as the next nationwide injunction test case – Steve Vladeck

Opinion analysis: With facts like these … – Heidi Kitrosser

Opinion analysis: Plain Sentencing Guidelines errors "ordinarily" justify relief – Evan Lee
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the June 14 conference and opinions in argued cases.
The justices granted certiorari in five cases: Sturgeon v. Frost, Garza v. Idaho, Lorenzo v. SEC, Timbs v. Indiana and Apple v. Pepper.
The justices released their decisions in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, Chavez-Meza v. United States, Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone.
On Thursday, there is a possibility of opinions at 10 a.m. The justices will meet for their June 21 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference will be available soon.
Major Cases
- Trump v. Hawaii
  (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
  Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
- Gill v. Whitford
  Plaintiffs -- Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury -- have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
- Carpenter v. United States
  Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Benisek v. Lamone Because the balance of equities and the public interest tilt against the preliminary injunction motion of plaintiffs claiming that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
- Chavez-Meza v. United States Because the record in this case demonstrates that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge’s explanation for reducing, under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2), Adaucto Chavez-Meza’s sentence to the middle rather than the bottom of the amended Federal Guidelines range was adequate.
- Gill v. Whitford Plaintiffs -- Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury -- have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida The existence of probable cause for Fane Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting does not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States A miscalculation of a Federal Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence in the ordinary case.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Arlene's Flowers Inc. v. Washington (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one's religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause.
- Bearcomesout v. United States Whether the “separate sovereign” concept actually exists when Congress’s plenary power over Indian tribes and the general erosion of any real tribal sovereignty is amplified by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s constitution in such a way that the petitioner’s prosecutions in both tribal and federal court violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
- Biestek v. Berryhill Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 49

Summary reversals 6

Merits cases granted to date 63

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Thomas gives commencement address

On May 12, Justice Clarence Thomas gave the commencement address at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

4
Orders
Opinions

7
Conference

11
Orders
Opinions

14
Conference
Opinions

18
Orders
Opinions

21
Conference
Opinions

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	49
Summary reversals	6
Merits cases granted to date	63