|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1587||4th Cir.||Feb 24, 2020||Jun 15, 2020||7-2||Thomas||OT 2019|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.
Holding: Because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 15, 2020. Justice Ginsburg joined the majority opinion as to all but part III-B-2. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 15 2019||Application (18A1181) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 26, 2019 to June 25, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|May 16 2019||Application (18A1181) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 25, 2019.|
|Jun 25 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 29, 2019)|
|Jul 01 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 29, 2019 to August 28, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 02 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC.|
|Jul 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 28, 2019.|
|Jul 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of United Association of Journeymen and Appentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of The United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 26 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 26 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 26 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Forest Resource Council et al filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 29 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, et al. filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief of respondents Cowpasture River Preservation Association, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Sep 11 2019||Reply of petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 04 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-1584 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Oct 04 2019||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. 18-1584. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-1584. 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.”|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, February 24, 2020. VIDED.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 21 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received from the 4th Circuit are SEALED documents that's been electronically filed.|
|Feb 24 2020||Argued. For petitioners in 18-1584: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 18-1587: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Michael K. Kellogg, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 15 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Alito Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Ginsburg, J., joined except as to Part III–B–2. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined. VIDED.|
|Jul 17 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.