American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-461	2d Cir.	Apr 22, 2014 Tr.Aud.	Jun 25, 2014	6-3	Breyer	OT 2013

Holding: Aereo publicly performs copyrighted works, in violation of the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when it sells its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 25, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas and Justice Alito joined.

Symposium: Aereo decision injects uncertainty into copyright (Mitch Stoltz)
Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme Court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act (Eleanor Lackman)
Symposium: A win, though a narrow one (thanks to Breyer, J.), for copyright owners (David Post)
Symposium: Series finale for Aereo, but will there be a spin-off? (Terry Hart)
Symposium: Aereo copyright decision creates uncertainty for the Cloud (Matthew Schruers)
Symposium: Aereo, disruptive technology, and statutory interpretation (Peter Menell and David Nimmer)
How copyright law blocks cheap Internet TV: In Plain English (Tom Goldstein)
Opinion analysis: A clever new technology thwarted -- for now (Lyle Denniston)
But what about the “cloud”? The Aereo argument in Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Slipping down the digital slope (Lyle Denniston)
A “view” from the Court: Big arguments, preceded by an even bigger opinion (Mark Walsh)
An audio discussion with the players in the Aereo broadcasting fight (Kali Borkoski)
Aereo -- Just the middleman, or a scofflaw? In Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Free TV, at a bargain price? (Lyle Denniston)
Alito rejoins the Court in two cases (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer)
Review of streaming TV issue urged (Lyle Denniston)
Challenge to streaming TV (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 11 2013	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2013)
Nov 4 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neitiher party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Nov 5 2013	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 12, 2013.
Nov 6 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae breifs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Nov 8 2013	Brief amicus curiae of The Media Institute filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Broadcasters, et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Time Warner Inc., and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Football League, and Major League Baseball filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Viacom, Inc., et al. filed.
Nov 12 2013	Brief amici curiae of Copyright Alliance, and Various Professors filed.
Dec 12 2013	Brief of respondent Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. in opposition filed.
Dec 23 2013	Reply of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 24 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.
Jan 10 2014	Petition GRANTED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Feb 3 2014	Motion for leave to intervene filed by FilmOn X, LLC, et al.
Feb 7 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Feb 10 2014	Opposition of respondent to motion to intervene
Feb 11 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Feb 12 2014	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.
Feb 12 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Feb 18 2014	Reply of FilmOn X LLC to respondent's opposition to motion to intervene.
Feb 24 2014	Joint appendix filed.
Feb 24 2014	Brief of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed.
Feb 26 2014	Brief amicus curiae of The Media Institute filed.
Feb 27 2014	Record received from U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit, a portion of this record is SEALED. This record is electronic (Not PACER).
Feb 27 2014	Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter S. Menell and David Nimmer filed.
Feb 28 2014	Record received from U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York (1Box), this record is SEALED.
Mar 3 2014	Motion for leave to intervene filed by FilmOn X, LLC, et al. DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Broadcasters, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of BSA / The Software Alliance in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology, et al. in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Viacom, Inc., et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of National Football League and Major League Baseball filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Cablevision Systems Corp. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Copyright Alliance and Various Professors filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Ralph Oman, Former Register of Copyrights of the United States filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amicus curiae of The Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia in support of neither party filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of International Center for Law & Economics, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), et al. filed.
Mar 3 2014	Brief amici curiae of Time Warner Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed.
Mar 10 2014	CIRCULATED.
Mar 12 2014	Motion of the Deputy Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 26 2014	Brief of respondent Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2014	Brief amici curiae of Small and Independent Broadcasters filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association and Mozilla Corporation filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of FilmOn X, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of DISH Network L.L.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of 36 Intellectual Property and Copyright Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors and Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of The Consumer Federation of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Cable Association filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2014	Brief amici curiae of Competition Law Professors, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 14 2014	Reply of petitioners American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 16 2014	Justice Alito is no longer recused in this case.
Apr 18 2014	Motion of the Deputy Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Apr 22 2014	Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.
Apr 23 2014	Letter from counsel for the respondents filed. (Distributed)
Jun 25 2014	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.
Jul 28 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jul 28 2014	Record returned for U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
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 February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda 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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74