|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-54||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s extensive, published ruling eliminates property owners’ ability to recover for temporary property takings under any theory, and that ruling conflicts with decisions of other courts, including the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court needs to clarify the rules for recovery for temporary regulatory takings; (2) whether, in light of the confusion in the lower courts as to the application of the factors from Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City — to the point where it has become almost impossible for property owners to prevail on this theory — the Supreme Court should reexamine and explain how Penn Central analysis is supposed to be done — or dispensed with; (3) whether, in light of the 9th Circuit’s holding that almost no value loss — no matter how great — can ever establish a temporary taking under either Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council or Penn Central, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to clarify the standards; and (4) whether, in light of Penn Central’s clear direction that cases like this are to be determined ad hoc, on their individual facts, and the Supreme Court’s approval in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, that takings liability be decided by a jury, appellate courts need to stay their hands (as mandated by the Seventh Amendment’s re-examination clause) when — as here — reviewing jury findings of fact-based takings issues, particularly when the trial judge confirmed those findings.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 17 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2020)|
|Aug 14 2020||Waiver of right of respondent Hawaii Land Use Commission to respond filed.|
|Aug 19 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Aug 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of Four Takings Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 21 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Owners' Counsel of America, National Association of Reversionary Property Owners, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Reason Foundation, and Professor Shelley Ross Saxer submitted.|
|Aug 21 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Matteoni, O'Laughlin & Hechtman submitted.|
|Sep 09 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Hawaii Land Use Commission|
|Sep 24 2020||Response Requested. (Due October 26, 2020)|
|Sep 30 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 26, 2020 to November 25, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 02 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 25, 2020.|
|Oct 26 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.|
|Nov 25 2020||Brief of respondent Hawaii Land Use Commission in opposition filed.|
|Dec 02 2020||Reply of petitioner Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC filed.|
|Dec 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Jan 04 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Jan 11 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.|
|Jan 19 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.|
|Feb 12 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 22 2021||Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
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...
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.