|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|21-476||10th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2022|
Issue: Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 24 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2021)|
|Oct 07 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 28, 2021 to December 10, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 08 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 8, 2021.|
|Oct 22 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.|
|Oct 26 2021||Brief amici curiae of Institute for Faith and Family and Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed.|
|Oct 27 2021||Brief amici curiae of the Cato Institute, et al. filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of Tyndale House Publishers et al. filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of United States Senators and Representatives filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Public Trust Institute filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars et al. filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of Law and Economics Scholars filed.|
|Oct 28 2021||Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed.|
|Oct 29 2021||Brief amici curiae of National Religious Broadcasters, et al. filed.|
|Dec 08 2021||Brief of respondents Aubrey Elenis, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 22 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.|
|Dec 22 2021||Reply of petitioners 303 Creative LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 10 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.|
|Jan 18 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.|
|Feb 04 2022||Supplemental brief of respondents Aubrey Elenis, et al. filed.|
|Feb 08 2022||Supplemental brief of petitioners 303 Creative LLC, et al. filed.|
|Feb 11 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.|
|Feb 22 2022||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.|
|Mar 04 2022||Motion of the parties for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Mar 10 2022||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, 303 Creative LLC, et al.|
|Mar 22 2022||Motion of the parties to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted in part. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 26, 2022. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 12, 2022.|
|Apr 11 2022||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Aubrey Elenis, et al.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.