|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-334||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issue: (1) Whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act establishes a freestanding exception to sovereign immunity, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held below, or instead merely supersedes First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba’s presumption of separate status while still requiring a plaintiff to satisfy the criteria for overcoming immunity elsewhere in Section 1610, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has held and the United States has repeatedly urged; and (2) whether a court should apply federal or state law to determine whether assets constitute “property of” or “assets of” the sovereign under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and Section 1610(g), and whether those provisions require that the sovereign own the property in question, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held and the United States has repeatedly urged, contrary to the decision below.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 12 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 17, 2016)|
|Oct 12 2016||Waiver of right of respondent Visa Inc.; Franklin Resources, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief of respondents Michael Bennett, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 01 2016||Reply of petitioner Bank Melli filed.|
|Nov 02 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 18 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 07 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 09 2017||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|May 23 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 05 2017||Supplemental brief of respondents Michael Bennett, et al. filed.|
|Jun 05 2017||Supplemental brief of petitioner Bank Melli filed.|
|Jun 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2017.|
|Feb 21 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2018.|
|Feb 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018.|
|Mar 05 2018||Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.