|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.