|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-393||5th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issue: (1) Whether Texas' voter-ID law “results in” the abridgment of voting rights on account of race; and (2) whether judgment should be rendered for the petitioners on the claim that Texas' voter-ID law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 23 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 27, 2016)|
|Sep 23 2016||Appendix of Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.|
|Oct 17 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent United States.|
|Oct 18 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Oct 19 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 28, 2016, for all respondents.|
|Oct 27 2016||Consent to filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al.|
|Oct 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed.|
|Oct 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress Representing States in the Fifth Circuit filed.|
|Nov 28 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Nov 28 2016||Brief of respondents Marc Veasey, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 28 2016||Brief of respondents Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 13 2016||Reply of petitioners Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.|
|Dec 14 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.|
|Jan 23 2017||Petition DENIED Statement of Chief Justice Roberts respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.