|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-281||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on a cert-stage amicus brief in support of petitioner in this case.
Issues: (1) Whether North Carolina statutes prohibiting Capital Associated Industries Inc.’s attorneys from providing legal assistance to its members violate the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and 14th Amendments; and (2) whether North Carolina statutes prohibiting Capital Associated Industries Inc.’s attorneys from providing legal assistance to its members are a content-based restriction on speech that must be reviewed under strict scrutiny.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 10 2019||Application (18A1321) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 18, 2019 to August 30, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jun 19 2019||Application (18A1321) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 30, 2019.|
|Aug 30 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 3, 2019)|
|Sep 25 2019||Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina State Bar to respond filed.|
|Sep 25 2019||Waiver of right of respondents Josh Stein, Nancy Lorrin Freeman, and Avery Crump to respond filed.|
|Oct 01 2019||Brief amici curiae of N.C. Chamber Legal Institute, et al. filed.|
|Oct 02 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 02 2019||Brief amici curiae of Responsive Law and Scholars of Access to Justice filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Employer Associations of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 10 2019||Response Requested. (Due November 12, 2019)|
|Nov 12 2019||Brief of respondents Josh Stein, Nancy Lorrin Freeman, Avery Crump and the North Carolina State Bar in opposition filed.|
|Nov 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.|
|Nov 26 2019||Reply of petitioner Capital Associated Industries, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Petition DENIED.|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.