|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1009||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether the Treasury Department’s regulation requiring related companies (such as parents and subsidiaries) to share the cost of stock-based employee compensation is arbitrary and capricious and thus invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) whether, under Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., the regulation may be upheld on a rationale that the agency never advanced during rulemaking; and (3) whether a procedurally defective regulation may be upheld under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. on the ground that the agency has offered a “permissible” interpretation of the statute in litigation.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 10 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2020)|
|Mar 06 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed.|
|Mar 10 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 16, 2020 to April 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 11 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 15, 2020.|
|Mar 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Mar 13 2020||Brief amici curiae of Former Foreign Tax Officials filed.|
|Mar 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Mar 16 2020||Brief amici curiae of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al. filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 15, 2020 to May 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 10 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 14, 2020.|
|May 14 2020||Brief of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in opposition filed.|
|Jun 01 2020||Reply of petitioner Altera Corporation & Subsidiaries filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2020.|
|Jun 22 2020||Petition DENIED.|
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Good morning. It’s Monday, and it’s March!
At 9:30 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will release orders from Friday’s conference.
At 10:00, the court will consider an appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges. More from George Quillin & Jeanne Gills.
Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges - SCOTUSblog
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s Unite...
BREAKING: SCOTUS orders California’s Santa Clara County to allow churches to hold indoor services. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent. Here’s the short shadow docket order.
#SCOTUS grants emergency request from northern California churches to allow indoor worship services pending appeal, says result is "clearly dictated" by recent decision. Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf
Just in: SCOTUS opinions expected next Thursday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning, March 1, at 9:30 am, with opinions again on Thursday, March 4, at 10 am. Justices will also hear oral arguments next week, including in Arizona voting dispute on Tuesday.
Apparently all the action today at #SCOTUS was not limited to opinion announcements at 10 am. Major new cert. petition filed today challenging Harvard admissions policy. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1364962610177843210
NEW: Supreme Court asked to outlaw race-based college admissions. Group challenging Harvard admissions policy says it files appeal asking court to over 2003 Grutter decision.
SCOTUS rules against a college student who tried to sue police officers after they mistook him for a criminal suspect and tackled/beat him. The unanimous ruling involves a technical interpretation of the "judgment bar" under the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
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.