City of Los Angeles v. Patel
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-1175 | 9th Cir. | Mar 3, 2015 | Jun 22, 2015 | 5-4 | Sotomayor | OT 2014 |
Holding: Los Angeles Municipal Code " 41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a ninety-day period and to make those records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand, is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for pre-compliance review.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 22, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinions, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: An "opportunity for precompliance review" is constitutionally required for most government inspection programs (Rory Little, June 23, 2015)
- A "view" from the Courtroom: A web of intrigue as the Term winds down (Mark Walsh, June 22, 2015)
- Argument analysis: How does requiring a warrant interfere with surprise police searches of hotel guest registers? (Rory Little, March 4, 2015)
- Argument preview: Hotel guest registers and the Fourth Amendment – harder than it looks? (Rory Little, March 2, 2015)
- Privacy of hotel guest lists at issue (Lyle Denniston, October 20, 2014)
- Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston, August 19, 2014)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 03/24/2014 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2014) |
| 04/25/2014 | Waiver of right of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. to respond filed. |
| 05/06/2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014. |
| 05/19/2014 | Response Requested . (Due June 18, 2014) |
| 05/28/2014 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 18, 2014. |
| 07/10/2014 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 18, 2014. |
| 08/12/2014 | Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 08/25/2014 | Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed. |
| 08/27/2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014. |
| 10/06/2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014. |
| 10/14/2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014. |
| 10/16/2014 | Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed) |
| 10/16/2014 | Letter from counsel for the petitioner received. (Distributed) |
| 10/20/2014 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 11/05/2014 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 15, 2014. |
| 11/05/2014 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 23, 2015. |
| 11/17/2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| 11/18/2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents. |
| 12/15/2014 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| 12/15/2014 | Brief of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed. |
| 12/19/2014 | Brief amici curiae of County of Los Angeles, et al. filed. |
| 12/19/2014 | Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 3, 2015 |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al., filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Love146 in support of neither party filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Brief amici curiae of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., et al. filed. |
| 12/22/2014 | Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. |
| 12/22/2014 | Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 01/05/2015 | Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California Western Division. (1 - Box) |
| 01/07/2015 | CIRCULATED. |
| 01/09/2015 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 01/23/2015 | Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/29/2015 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Adam Lamparello and Charles E. MacLean filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Asian American Hotel Owners Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of United States Chamber of Commerce filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/30/2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Google Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/18/2015 | Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/20/2015 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 03/03/2015 | Argued. For petitioner: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md. |
| 06/22/2015 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. |
| 07/23/2015 | Record (1-box) returned to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. |
| 07/24/2015 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |