|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-520||9th Cir.||Mar 31, 2021||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether the Sherman Act authorizes a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to full Rule of Reason review, and to hold those rules unlawful if, in the court’s view, they are not the least restrictive means that could have been used to accomplish their procompetitive goal.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 15 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2020)|
|Nov 09 2020||Brief of respondents Shawne Alston, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Sam C. Ehrlich filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 18 2020||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law And Business School Professors filed.|
|Nov 18 2020||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Economists filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Nov 24 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.|
|Nov 24 2020||Reply of petitioner The Big Ten Conference, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 16 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 20-512 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Dec 16 2020||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. 20-512. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-512. 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.”|
|Feb 01 2021||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 31, 2021. VIDED.|
|Feb 04 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 04 2021||Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. Part of the record is SEALED and has been electronically filed.|
|Feb 22 2021||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 31 2021||Argued. For petitioners: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jeffrey L. Kessler, New York, N. Y.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.