|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-333||D. Md.||Mar 28, 2018||Jun 18, 2018||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Holding: Because the balance of equities and the public interest tilt against the preliminary injunction motion of plaintiffs claiming that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Judgment: Affirmed in a per curiam opinion on June 18, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 01 2017||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due October 2, 2017)|
|Sep 01 2017||Motion to expedite consideration of the jurisdictional statement filed by appellants.|
|Sep 11 2017||Response in opposition to motion to expedite consideration of the jurisdictional statement from appellees filed.|
|Sep 12 2017||Reply to response in opposition to motion to expedite consideration of the jurisdictional statement from appellants filed.|
|Sep 13 2017||Motion to expedite consideration filed by appellants DENIED.|
|Sep 14 2017||Order extending time to file response to the jurisdictional statement to and including October 31, 2017.|
|Oct 31 2017||Motion to affirm filed by appellees Linda H. Lamone, et al.|
|Nov 13 2017||Opposition to motion of appellants O. John Benisek, et al. filed.|
|Nov 14 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2017.|
|Dec 04 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.|
|Dec 08 2017||Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits.|
|Dec 26 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, O. John Benisek, et al.|
|Jan 05 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Linda H. Lamone, et al.|
|Jan 22 2018||Brief of appellants O. John Benisek, et al. filed.|
|Jan 22 2018||Joint appendix filed (4 volumes). (Statement of cost filed.)|
|Jan 24 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 28, 2018|
|Jan 25 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Common Cause filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Bipartisan Current and Former Members of Congress filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and the County of Santa Clara filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Michael Kang filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center and Southern Coalition for Social Justice in Support of Neither Party filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Governors Lawrence Joseph Hogan Jr., Arnold A. Schwarzenegger, Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis Jr., and John R. Kasich filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Stephen M. Shapiro filed.|
|Feb 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 21 2018||Record requested from the U.S.D.C Dist. of Maryland.|
|Feb 21 2018||Brief of appellees Linda H. Lamone, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of State of Wisconsin filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of States of Michigan, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 13 2018||Reply of appellants O. John Benisek, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 28 2018||Argued. For appellants: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Steven M. Sullivan, Solicitor General, Baltimore, Md.|
|Jun 18 2018||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jul 20 2018||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...