|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-10||2d Cir.||Apr 22, 2013||Jun 20, 2013||6-2||Roberts||OT 2012|
Holding: The requirement that nongovernmental organizations wishing to receive funding from the federal government for HIV and AIDS programs overseas adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution violates the First Amendment.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 20 2012||Application (11A999) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 2, 2012 to July 1, 2012, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Apr 20 2012||Application (11A999) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until July 2, 2012.|
|Jul 2 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 2, 2012)|
|Jul 2 2012||Appendix of Agency for International Development, et al. filed.|
|Jul 19 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 4, 2012.|
|Aug 13 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 4, 2012.|
|Sep 21 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 5, 2012.|
|Nov 5 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 5, 2012.|
|Dec 3 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 12, 2012.|
|Dec 12 2012||Brief of respondents Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 26 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 11 2013||Petition GRANTED. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Feb 11 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 22, 2013|
|Feb 25 2013||Brief of petitioners Agency for International Development, et al. filed.|
|Feb 25 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 27 2013||Record Received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York. (1-Box)|
|Mar 1 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 19 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic.|
|Mar 27 2013||Brief of respondents Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 1 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Apr 2 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS Secretariat) filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Heartbeat International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of Deans and professors of public health and organizations working in public health policy and implementation filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Christian Legal Society filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Independent Sector filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Current and Former Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed.|
|Apr 15 2013||Reply of petitioners Agency for International Development, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 22 2013||Argued. For petitioners: Sri Srinivasan, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: David W. Bowker, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 20 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jul 22 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 29 2013||Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Southern District of New York.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
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.