|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)|
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
Tomorrow morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of voting rights cases involving Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits policies or laws that result in racial discrimination in voting.
Missed the morning orders? @AHoweBlogger's got you covered. Read about the new grants including a review of Puerto Rico’s eligibility for a federal benefits program. Plus, she's got an overview of several high-profile petitions still under consideration.
Court will review Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal benefits program - SCOTUSblog
The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justic...
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
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.