|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-544||D.C. Cir.||Apr 19, 2021||Jun 25, 2021||6-3||Sotomayor||OT 2020|
Holding: Alaska Native Corporations are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 25, 2021. Justice Alito joined the court's opinion as to Parts I, II–C, II–D, III and IV. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 21 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 25, 2020)|
|Nov 04 2020||Brief amicus curiae of State of Alaska filed.|
|Nov 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 25, 2020 to December 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 16 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 16, 2020, for all respondents.|
|Nov 18 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by US Senators Lisa Murkowski, et al. VIDED.|
|Nov 23 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Alaska Federation of Natives filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 16 2020||Brief of respondents Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al., et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 16 2020||Brief of respondents Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 16 2020||Brief of respondents Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in opposition filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 22 2020||Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5. filed.|
|Dec 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 23 2020||Reply of petitioners Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2021||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by US Senators Lisa Murkowski, et al. GRANTED.|
|Jan 08 2021||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 20-543 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jan 08 2021||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 20-543. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-543. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Mar 12 2021||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 19, 2021. VIDED.|
|Mar 15 2021||Record requested.|
|Mar 16 2021||The record received from the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Mar 16 2021||The record from the U.S.C.A. D.C. Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Mar 30 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 31 2021||Amicus brief of Professors and Historians not accepted for filing. (April 28, 2021--to be filed in lead case No. 20-543)|
|Apr 19 2021||Argued. For petitioner in 20-543: Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 20-544: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jeffrey S. Rasmussen, Louisville, Colo. VIDED.|
|Jun 25 2021||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined as to Parts I, II–C, II–D, III, and IV. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Kagan, JJ., joined. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We are honored to be chosen as the winner of an American Journalism Online Award for Best Non-profit News Source. Thanks to everyone for reading & supporting SCOTUSblog, including on our opinion-day live blogs, which the awarding judge called a "digital townsquare." #AJOawards
The winner of the award for Best Non-Profit News Source is @scotusblog. Judge @juliachanb called the site “a crucial tool in a political journalist’s toolbox” and praised their recent site revamp and dedication to transparency. https://www.scotusblog.com 2/
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...