|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether strict First Amendment scrutiny applies to a criminal law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material; and (2) whether the First Amendment requires a law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material to impose a requirement of specific intent to harm or harass the individual(s) depicted.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 10 2020||Application (19A777) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 16, 2020 to February 14, 2020, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.|
|Jan 14 2020||Application (19A777) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until February 14, 2020.|
|Feb 14 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2020)|
|Mar 04 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Bethany Austin.|
|Mar 19 2020||Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.|
|Mar 19 2020||Brief amici curiae of American Booksellers Association, et al. filed.|
|Mar 20 2020||Letter of Bethany Austin not accepted for filing. (March 20, 2020 - Corrected version to be submitted)|
|Mar 20 2020||Letter of petitioner Bethany Austin received.|
|Mar 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Mar 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project filed.|
|Mar 20 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Woodhull Freedom Foundation filed.|
|Mar 20 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Mar 25 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.|
|Apr 02 2020||Response Requested. (Due May 4, 2020)|
|Apr 24 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 4, 2020 to July 3, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 27 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 6, 2020. See Rule 30.1.|
|Jul 06 2020||Brief of respondent State of Illinois in opposition filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Jul 27 2020||Reply of petitioner Bethany Austin filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 05 2020||Petition DENIED.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.