|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1623||2d Cir.||Oct 8, 2019||Jun 15, 2020||6-3||Gorsuch||OT 2019|
Holding: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 29 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 2, 2018)|
|Jun 19 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 2, 2018 to August 16, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 21 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 16, 2018.|
|Jul 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed.|
|Aug 16 2018||Brief of respondents Melissa Zarda, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 04 2018||Reply of petitioners Altitude Express, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 05 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Sep 11 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 07 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.|
|Nov 26 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 03 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.|
|Dec 03 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Mar 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.|
|Mar 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.|
|Mar 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.|
|Apr 08 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.|
|Apr 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.|
|Apr 22 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petition for writ of certiorari in No. 17-1618 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Apr 23 2019||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. 17-1618. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 17-1618. 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 fling is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|May 13 2019||Petitioner in No. 17-1618, respondents in No. 17-1623, and respondent Aimee Stephens in No. 18-107 shall file their briefs on the merits, pursuant to Rule 33.1(g)(v), on or before Wednesday, June 26, 2019. Respondent in No. 17-1618, petitioners in No. 17-1623, and petitioner and respondent EEOC in No. 18-107 shall file their briefs on the merits, pursuant to Rule 33.1(g)(vi), on or before Friday, August 16, 2019. Reply briefs, if any, pursuant to Rule 33.1(g)(vii), shall be filed on or before Monday, September 16, 2019. Amicus curiae briefs shall be filed pursuant to Rule 37.3. VIDED.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 8, 2019. VIDED|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.|
|Aug 20 2019||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit is electronic.|
|Oct 08 2019||Argued. For petitioner in 17-1618 and respondents in 17-1623: Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford, Cal. For respondent in 17-1618 and petitioners in 17-1623: Jeffrey M. Harris, Arlington, Va.; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED.|
|Jun 15 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED (Reversed and remanded in No. 17-1618). Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion. (Opinion also for No. 18-107). VIDED.|
|Jul 17 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 31 2020||AMENDED JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 06 2020||SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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!
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.
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.