|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-103||5th Cir.||Feb 25, 2015||Jun 15, 2015||6-3||Thomas||OT 2014|
Holding: Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit bankruptcy courts to award fees for defending fee applications to professionals hired under Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 15, 2015. Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Thomas's opinion as to all but Part III-B-2. Justice Sotomayor also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 29 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 29, 2014)|
|Jul 31 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Aug 15 2014||Brief of respondent ASARCO, L.L.C. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The State Bar of Texas Bankruptcy Law Section filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Business Law Section of The Florida Bar filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Reply of petitioners Baker Botts, L.L.P., et al. filed.|
|Sep 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 2 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 8 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Oct 22 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 3, 2014.|
|Oct 22 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 20, 2015.|
|Nov 10 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Baker Botts, L.L.P., et al.|
|Nov 17 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Dec 3 2014||Brief of petitioners Baker Botts, L.L.P., et al. filed.|
|Dec 8 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Neutral Fee Examiners in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Proposal from counsel for amicus curiae National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys to lodge a copy of the American Bankruptcy Institute National Report on Professional Compensation in Bankruptcy Cases (G. R. Warner, rep. 1991).|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Bankruptcy Law Scholars filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The State Bar of Texas Bankruptcy Law Section filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Former Bankruptcy Judges Leif M. Clark and Judith K. Fitzgerald filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 25, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Dec 29 2014||The record from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is located on PACER.|
|Dec 29 2014||The record from U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas is located on PACER.|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 8 2015||CA5 Record received on two thumb drives, one is under seal.|
|Jan 14 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief of respondent ASARCO, L.L.C. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors Richard Aaron, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 13 2015||Reply of petitioners Baker Botts, L.L.P., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 25 2015||Argued. For petitioners: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex.; and Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Jeffrey L. Oldham, Houston, Tex.|
|Jun 15 2015||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined, and in which Sotomayor, J., joined as to all but Part III-B-2. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 10 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
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...