|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-56||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2014|
Issue: Whether a disparate-treatment claim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., that challenges a facially nondiscriminatory law on the ground that the law nevertheless intentionally discriminates on the basis of disability can prevail absent proof of discriminatory effects.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 14 2014||Application (13A1133) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 2, 2014 to August 1, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|May 14 2014||Application (13A1133) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 17, 2014.|
|Jul 17 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 18, 2014)|
|Jul 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 5 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 26, 2014.|
|Aug 5 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Aug 15 2014||Brief amicus curiae of California Cities, Bradbury, Claremont, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, and San Clemente filed.|
|Aug 15 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Aug 18 2014||Brief amici curiae of League of California Cities, and California State Association of Counties filed.|
|Aug 18 2014||Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed.|
|Sep 26 2014||Brief of respondents Pacific Shores Properties, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 14 2014||Reply of petitioner City of Newport Beach, California filed.|
|Oct 15 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 31, 2014.|
|Nov 3 2014||Petition DENIED.|
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...
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.
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.