|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-1775||9th Cir.||Feb 23, 2022||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: (1) Whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 18 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2021)|
|Jul 09 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2021 to August 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 12 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 23, 2021, for all respondents.|
|Aug 23 2021||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Aug 23 2021||Brief of respondents State of California et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 23 2021||Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 23 2021||Brief of respondents Washington et al. in opposition filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 08 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.|
|Sep 08 2021||Reply of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 04 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.|
|Oct 12 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.|
|Oct 25 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.|
|Oct 29 2021||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Dec 13 2021||Brief of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Dec 13 2021||Joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 14 2021||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Arizona, et al.|
|Dec 17 2021||ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, February 23, 2022.|
|Dec 17 2021||Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 20 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Dec 20 2021||Brief amici curiae of Ohio, et al. filed.|
|Dec 21 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Dec 21 2021||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Dec 21 2021||The record from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Washington (Richland) is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Jan 12 2022||Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara filed.|
|Jan 12 2022||Brief of State Respondents filed.|
|Jan 12 2022||Brief of Federal Respondents filed.|
|Jan 18 2022||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 19 2022||Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.|
|Jan 24 2022||Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2022||Reply of petitioner Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 17 2022||Letter of the Solicitor General updating on status of availability of NPRM text. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2022||Argued. For petitioners: Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For federal respondents: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Helen H. Hong, Deputy Solicitor General, San Diego, Cal.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.