|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-565||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: Whether vertical conduct by a disruptive market entrant, aimed at securing suppliers for a new retail platform, should be condemned as per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, rather than analyzed under the rule of reason, because such vertical activity also had the alleged effect of facilitating horizontal collusion among the suppliers.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 16 2015||Application (15A301) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 28, 2015 to October 28, 2015, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Sep 17 2015||Application (15A301) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until October 28, 2015.|
|Oct 28 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2015)|
|Nov 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 4, 2016, for all respondents.|
|Nov 17 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for all respondents, except for the United States.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of BSA I The Software Alliance filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Economists filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Act I The App Association filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of International Center for Law & Economics, and Scholars of Law and Economics filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jan 4 2016||Brief of respondents Texas, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Apple, Inc. filed.|
|Jan 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 24 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Feb 29 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.|
|Mar 7 2016||Petition DENIED.|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.