|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-882||11th Cir.||Jan 15, 2020||Apr 6, 2020||8-1||Alito||OT 2019|
Holding: The plain meaning of 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a), the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age, but but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy that may be obtained.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on April 6, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 07 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2019)|
|Jan 30 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 8, 2019 to March 11, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 31 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 11, 2019.|
|Mar 04 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 11, 2019 to April 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 10, 2019.|
|Apr 04 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 10, 2019 to May 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 20, 2019.|
|May 20 2019||Brief of respondent Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed.|
|Jun 03 2019||Reply of petitioner Noris Babb filed.|
|Jun 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.|
|Jun 28 2019||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U. S. C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.|
|Jul 19 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time within which to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time within which to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 17, 2019. The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including November 22, 2019.|
|Sep 17 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Sep 17 2019||Brief of petitioner Noris Babb filed.|
|Sep 17 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Noris Babb.|
|Sep 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Treasury Employees Union filed.|
|Sep 24 2019||Brief amici curiae of AARP, et al. filed.|
|Nov 08 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, January 15, 2020.|
|Nov 22 2019||Brief of respondent Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed.|
|Nov 26 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 03 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Dec 23 2019||Reply of petitioner Noris Babb filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 15 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 17 2020||The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: What prospective administrative or judicial relief may a federal employee obtain under laws other than the ADEA, including under the civil service laws or the Constitution, against age-related policies, practices, actions, or statements that were not the but-for cause of an adverse employment action against the complaining employee? The briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Thursday, January 23, 2020.|
|Jan 23 2020||Supplemental letter brief of petitioner Noris Babb filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2020||Supplemental letter brief of respondent Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 06 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court,, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to all but footnote 3. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|May 08 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.