|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-1375||7th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether, when a court permits an unemancipated minor to have an abortion, the state may require that her parents be notified before the abortion occurs except where such notice would contravene her best interests.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 29 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 3, 2021)|
|Apr 19 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 3, 2021 to June 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 20 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including June 2, 2021.|
|May 03 2021||Amicus brief of Eighty-Eight Women Who Underwent Abortions as Minors and Suffered Harm not accepted for filing. (May 04, 2021 - Corrected brief to be submitted)|
|May 03 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Life filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amici curiae of Eighty-Eight Women Who Underwent Abortions as Minors and Suffered Harm filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Susan B. Anthony List filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amici curiae of Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Charlotte Lozier Institute filed.|
|May 03 2021||Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.|
|Jun 02 2021||Brief of respondent Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 07 2021||Reply of petitioners Kristina Box, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 08 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.|
|Jun 29 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.|
|Jun 30 2022||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Jul 13 2022||Application (22A29) for immediate issuance of the judgment, submitted to The Chief Justice. (Justice Barrett is recused.)|
|Jul 14 2022||Response to application (22A29) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 5 p.m. (EDT) July 15, 2022.|
|Jul 14 2022||Response to application from respondent Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 18 2022||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 18 2022||Application (22A29) to issue the judgement forthwith to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is granted by The Chief Justice.|
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.