|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1175||9th Cir.||Mar 3, 2015||Jun 22, 2015||5-4||Sotomayor||OT 2014|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Holding: Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a ninety-day period and to make those records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand, is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for pre-compliance review.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 22, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinions, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 24 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2014)|
|Apr 25 2014||Waiver of right of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. to respond filed.|
|May 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014.|
|May 19 2014||Response Requested . (Due June 18, 2014)|
|May 28 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 18, 2014.|
|Jul 10 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 18, 2014.|
|Aug 12 2014||Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed.|
|Aug 27 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.|
|Oct 14 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.|
|Oct 16 2014||Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2014||Letter from counsel for the petitioner received. (Distributed)|
|Oct 20 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 5 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 15, 2014.|
|Nov 5 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 23, 2015.|
|Nov 17 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 18 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Dec 15 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed.|
|Dec 19 2014||Brief amici curiae of County of Los Angeles, et al. filed.|
|Dec 19 2014||Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 3, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al., filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Love146 in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Dec 22 2014||Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 5 2015||Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California Western Division. (1 - Box)|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 9 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jan 23 2015||Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors Adam Lamparello and Charles E. MacLean filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Asian American Hotel Owners Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of United States Chamber of Commerce filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Google Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 18 2015||Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 3 2015||Argued. For petitioner: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.|
|Jun 22 2015||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 23 2015||Record (1-box) returned to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.|
|Jul 24 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
FWOTSC. You figure that one out.*
h/t to @marinklevy for the story and the always-entertaining threads.
#SCOTUS announces that it will hold a formal, although "purely ceremonial," investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett next Friday. Attendance at the ceremony is by invitation only, & press coverage will be pooled. Full announcement is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-24-21
Need a refresher on "cert before judgment" practice at SCOTUS? We've got you covered.
@steve_vladeck examined the practice (among other types of extraordinary relief) in 2018: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/power-versus-discretion-extraordinary-relief-and-the-supreme-court/
And Kevin Russell wrote a detailed explainer in 2011:
Abortion providers in Texas return to Supreme Court, now asking the justices for immediate review on the merits of their challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban (cert. before judgment)
The Supreme Court will have a new oral argument procedure when they return to the bench Oct. 4. There will be an opportunity for individual questioning by each justice in order of seniority.
Interesting new procedure for oral arguments when the justices return to in-person arguments next month. Does it increase the chances that we will continue to hear from Justice Thomas, who was an active participant using the taking-turns format? https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1440318536723812363
NEW: The Supreme Court just released its December argument calendar. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the term's big abortion case, will be argued Dec. 1.
#SCOTUS will hear oral argument in Mississippi abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1. Full December argument calendar is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2021.pdf
We noted yesterday that Justice Thomas was speaking at Notre Dame but that there was no livestream. A video of his speech is now posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kb4bFYdujA
Thomas criticized the media and defended the court's independence. Seems to be a theme among the justices lately.
💥 Breyer continues book tour (including @colbertlateshow two nights ago).
💥 Barrett gave a speech Sunday @uofl.
💥 Thomas is slated to give the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture today @NotreDame (but, like Barrett's speech, there is apparently no livestream).