|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.|
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 ...
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!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.