Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Editor's Note :

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 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

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-1085	9th Cir.	Nov 5, 2012 Tr.Aud.	Feb 27, 2013	6-3	Ginsburg	OT 2012

Holding: Proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action seeking money damages for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule #10(b) and Rule 1.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on February 27, 2013. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kennedy joined and which Justice Scalia joined except for part I-B.

Opinion analysis: Plaintiffs need not establish materiality to obtain certification of securities class actions (Steven Kaufhold)
Argument recap: Court poised to decide whether materiality is required for class certification (Steven Kaufhold)
Argument preview: Materiality required for class certification in fraud-on-the-market cases? (Steven Kaufhold)
Scholarship highlight: Who should resolve issues relating to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? (Lumen Mulligan and Glen Staszewski)
Petition of the day (Matthew Bush)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 1 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 4, 2012)
Mar 26 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 4, 2012.
Apr 4 2012	Brief amici curiae of Former SEC Commissioners, et al. filed.
Apr 4 2012	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Apr 4 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
May 2 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 11, 2012.
May 11 2012	Brief of respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds in opposition filed.
May 21 2012	Reply of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed.
May 22 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012.
May 31 2012	Letter and attachment of respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds filed. (Distributed)
Jun 4 2012	Letter of petitioner Amgen Inc., et al. in response filed. (Distributed)
Jun 11 2012	Petition GRANTED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Jun 21 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 8, 2012.
Jun 21 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 20, 2012.
Jul 16 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Amgen Inc., et al.
Jul 23 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 5, 2012
Jul 25 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Aug 2 2012	Record recieved from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 box)
Aug 3 2012	Record recieved from U.S.D.C. for Central District of California. (2 boxes)
Aug 8 2012	Brief of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed.
Aug 13 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Aug 13 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondent.
Aug 14 2012	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
Aug 15 2012	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Aug 15 2012	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Aug 15 2012	Brief amici curiae of Former SEC Commissioners, et al. filed.
Aug 15 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.
Aug 24 2012	CIRCULATED.
Sep 20 2012	Brief of respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Justice Breyer is no longer recused in this case.
Sep 27 2012	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief of National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Sep 27 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure and Securities Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amici curiae of New York City Pension Funds, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amici curiae of Financial Economists filed. (Distributed)
Sep 27 2012	Brief amici curiae of California Public Employees' Retirement System, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 15 2012	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Oct 22 2012	Reply of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 5 2012	Argued. For petitioners: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.; and Melissa Arbus Sherry, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
Feb 27 2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined except for Part I-B.
Apr 1 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jul 5 2013	Record returned to U.S. D.C. for Central District of California.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
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 met for their February 22 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this 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.

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

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)
Opinions

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