Consolidated with:
Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11-1545 | 5th Cir. | Jan 16, 2013 | May 20, 2013 | 6-3 | Scalia | OT 2012 |
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the petitioners in these cases.
Holding: Courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s statutory authority ( i.e., its jurisdiction).
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on May 20, 2013. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito joined.
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
Jun 27 2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 30, 2012) |
Jul 24 2012 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 29, 2012, for all respondents. |
Jul 30 2012 | Brief amici curiae of National Water Resources Association, et al. filed. |
Aug 28 2012 | Brief of respondents CTIA - The Wireless Associations, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED. |
Aug 29 2012 | Brief of respondents Federal Communications Commission, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED. |
Sep 11 2012 | Reply of petitioner City of Arlington, Texas, et al. filed. |
Sep 12 2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012. |
Oct 5 2012 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-1547 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. |
Oct 31 2012 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 16, 2013. |
Oct 31 2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents CTIA - The Wireless Association and Verizon Wireless. VIDED |
Nov 6 2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Intervenors, International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. |
Nov 8 2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for all petitioners. VIDED |
Nov 15 2012 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners City of Arlington, Texas, et al. VIDED. |
Nov 19 2012 | Brief of petitioners City of Arlington, Texas, et al. filed. |
Nov 19 2012 | Brief of respondents International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. in support of petitioners filed. VIDED. |
Nov 20 2012 | Record received from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit. (1box) |
Nov 21 2012 | Brief amici curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Nov 21 2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Cable Telecommunications and Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council. VIDED. |
Nov 26 2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Southern Company filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Nov 26 2012 | Brief amici curiae of National Water Resources Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Nov 26 2012 | Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Nov 26 2012 | Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed. VIDED.(Distributed) |
Nov 27 2012 | CIRCULATED |
Dec 3 2012 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
Dec 3 2012 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. VIDED. |
Dec 12 2012 | Brief of respondent Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Dec 19 2012 | Brief of respondents Federal Communications Commission, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Dec 19 2012 | Brief amici curiae of AT&T Services Inc., et al filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Dec 21 2012 | Brief amici curiae of T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Dec 26 2012 | Motion for divided argument filed by petitioner Cable, Telecommunications, and Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council. VIDED. |
Dec 26 2012 | Brief amicus curiae of PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Jan 4 2013 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent, Cellco Patnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless DENIED. VIDED. |
Jan 4 2013 | Motion for divided argument filed by petitioner DENIED. VIDED. |
Jan 8 2013 | Reply of petitioners City of Arlington, Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Jan 9 2013 | Reply of respondents International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. in support of petitioners filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Jan 10 2013 | Motion for leave to file a reply brief on the merits filed by EMR Policy Institute. VIDED. |
Jan 16 2013 | Argued. For petitioners: Thomas C. Goldstein, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
Jan 22 2013 | Motion for leave to file a reply brief on the merits DENIED. |
May 20 2013 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Alito, JJ., joined. |
Jun 21 2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Jun 27 2013 | Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit |
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...
www.scotusblog.com
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...
www.scotusblog.com
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
www.scotusblog.com
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
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.