|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-857||9th Cir.||Oct 14, 2015||Jan 20, 2016||6-3||Ginsburg||OT 2015|
Holding: 1) An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s complaint. 2) A federal contractor is not entitled to immunity from suit for its violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it violated both federal law and the government's explicit instructions.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on January 20, 2016. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 5 2014||Application (14A598) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 18, 2014 to January 19, 2015, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Dec 8 2014||Application (14A598) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 19, 2015.|
|Jan 16 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 19, 2015)|
|Feb 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 23, 2015.|
|Feb 19 2015||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and Business Roundtable filed.|
|Mar 23 2015||Brief of respondent Jose Gomez in opposition filed.|
|Apr 7 2015||Reply of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company filed.|
|Apr 8 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015.|
|Apr 13 2015||Supplemental brief of respondent Jose Gomez filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 14 2015||Response to supplemental brief of respondent from petitioner filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 23 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 27 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.|
|May 4 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 14, 2015.|
|May 18 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 10 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 23 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 16, 2015.|
|Jun 23 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 24, 2015.|
|Jun 30 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 16 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 16 2015||Brief of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company filed.|
|Jul 21 2015||Brief amici curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar & PSC - The Voice of the Government Services Industry filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Consumer Data Industry Association filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The National Black Chamber of Commerce filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of National Defense Industrial Association filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of KBR, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and Business Roundtable filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers for Civil Justice filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Trans Union LLC filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 14, 2015.|
|Aug 12 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Aug 12 2015||The record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Part of the record received is SEALED.|
|Aug 12 2015||The record from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of CA. Western Div.- Los Angeles is electronic and located on PACER. Part of the record received is SEALED.|
|Aug 24 2015||Brief of respondent Jose Gomez filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 31 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of Public Justice, P.C. and AARP Foundation Litigation filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amicus curiae of NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 22 2015||Reply of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 28 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 14 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Gregory G. Garre, Bethesda, Md. For respondent: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Stanford, Cal.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jan 20 2016||Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Feb 23 2016||Judgment Issued|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.