|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-204||9th Cir.||Apr 16, 2012||Jun 18, 2012||5-4||Alito||OT 2011|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for and/or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the petitioners in this case.
Holding: The petitioners – pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases – qualify as outside salesmen under the most reasonable interpretation of the Department of Labor’s regulations.
Plain English Summary: In this case, two sales representatives of a large pharmaceutical company sued their employer, alleging that they were owed overtime wages. The pharmaceutical company argued the sales representatives were not entitled to overtime wages because they were classified as “outside salesmen,” who are exempt from the federal law that requires payment of overtime wages. The Court held that the sales representatives were outside salesmen and as such are not entitled to overtime wages.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 18, 2012. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Merits briefs for the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Petitioners
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent
#SCOTUS does not take up 2nd question in the case, on whether to overrule its 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Full order is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012122zr_3f14.pdf https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1484606315519516675
#SCOTUS grants one new case, sets it for argument in April: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, on whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
More opinions coming on Monday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court is expected to release more opinions on Monday morning at 10 am.
The next #SCOTUS grants? Kevin McCarthy v. Nancy Pelosi in a fight over congressional proxy voting; the First Amendment-based ministerial exception to employment law returns; nondelegation doctrine (!); and the constitutionality of the FTC's structure.
Revenge of the rescheduled cases: Congressional proxy voting, the ministerial exception, and more - SCOTUSblog
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming con...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court, over dissents from the three liberal justices, rejects a request from Texas abortion clinics to immediately return the litigation over Texas' six-week abortion law to a federal district court.
The Supreme Court issues a single opinion today, ruling in an 8-1 vote that a criminal defendant's rights were violated under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause when the government introduced a plea allocution from another proceeding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: We expect one or more opinions in argued cases to be issued starting at 10 a.m. EST. At 9:45, we'll fire up our live blog, where we'll also chat about this week's arguments and last night's ruling on Trump records. Grab your ☕️ & join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, Jan. 20 - SCOTUSblog
On Thursday, January 20, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases f...