|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20A90||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether Executive Order 202.68 by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) violates the free exercise clause as targeting and a religious gerrymander when Cuomo made clear through unambiguous statements that the order was targeted at a religious minority’s practices and traditions; and (2) whether the provisions of that order limiting in-person “house of worship” attendance to 10 or 25 people, while allowing numerous secular businesses to operate without any capacity restrictions, violate the free exercise clause on its face by disfavoring worship.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 16 2020||Application (20A90) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Nov 16 2020||Response to application (20A90) requested by Justice Breyer, due Friday, November 20, by 2 p.m.|
|Nov 17 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al.|
|Nov 17 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Muslim Public Affairs Council, et al.|
|Nov 17 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.|
|Nov 19 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by American Medical Association, et al.|
|Nov 20 2020||Response to application from respondent Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York filed.|
|Nov 20 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by First Liberty Institute.|
|Nov 20 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, et al.|
|Nov 20 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.|
|Nov 22 2020||Reply of applicants Agudath Israel, et al. filed.|
|Nov 25 2020||Application (20A90) referred to the Court.|
|Nov 25 2020||The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is granted in part. Respondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicants, including Agudath Israel of America’s current New York-based affiliates, pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting: I dissent for the reasons set out in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting). Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join, dissenting: I dissent for the reasons set out in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (Breyer, J., dissenting). Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan joins, dissenting: I dissent for the reasons set out in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).|
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!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.