Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda

Opinion analysis: Justices allow "peace cross" to stand – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Monday at the Supreme Court: Four opinions and a GVR – SCOTUStalk

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Consolidated with:

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-1623	2d Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2019

Issue: Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

“Because of sex”: Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell join Amy Howe to discuss new cases involving whether federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees (SCOTUStalk)
Court to take up LGBT rights in the workplace (Updated) (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the day (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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 flings 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.
Jun 05 2019	Letter of Melissa Zarda, et al. submitted.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices allow "peace cross" to stand – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Monday at the Supreme Court: Four opinions and a GVR – SCOTUStalk
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the June 13 conference on Monday; the justices granted, vacated and remanded Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Gamble v. United States and Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill.
On Thursday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: Gundy v. United States, McDonough v. Smith, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association and PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.
Also on Thursday, the justices met for their June 20 conference; John Elwood's "Relist Watch" compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Gundy v. United States TThe judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that 34 U. S. C. §20913(d) – which requires the U.S. attorney general to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s registration requirements as soon as feasible to offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment – is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is affirmed.
- McDonough v. Smith The statute of limitations for Edward McDonough’s 42 U. S. C. §1983 fabricated-evidence claim against his prosecutor began to run when the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor – that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial.
- PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. The extent to which a 2006 Federal Communications Commission order interpreting the term “unsolicited advertisement” binds lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary questions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit should address in the first instance: (1) whether the order is the equivalent of a legislative rule, which has the force and effect of law, or an interpretative rule, which does not; and (2) whether PDR Network, LLC had a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the order.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
- Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck Manhattan Community Access Corp., a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
- Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill The House of Delegates lacks standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan.
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s judgment that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia’s prohibition on uranium mining in the commonwealth is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Banister v. Davis (1) Whether Gonzalez v. Crosby extends to post-judgment motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); (2) whether, if Gonzalez does apply, a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion should toll the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); and (3) whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has be recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 53

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	53
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions