|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of “effect of prohibiting” in light of its plain meaning, lack of a limiting standard and National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services; and (2) whether the divided 9th Circuit erred in affirming the FCC’s interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 253 to mandate access, at cost, to public property for private commercial use.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 22 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 26, 2021)|
|Apr 22 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 26, 2021 to May 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 23 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 26, 2021, for all respondents.|
|Apr 26 2021||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed.|
|Apr 26 2021||Brief of respondent International Municipal Lawyers Association in support of the petition filed. (Docket entry corrected 5/20/21)|
|Apr 27 2021||Waiver of City of Portland, et al. of right to respond not accepted for filing. (May 11, 2021)|
|May 12 2021||Waiver of right of respondents City of Austin, Texas, et al. to respond filed.|
|May 19 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 26, 2021 to June 2, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|May 20 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 2, 2021, for all respondents.|
|May 25 2021||Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the filing of a reply pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.|
|Jun 02 2021||Brief of respondents Federal Respondents in opposition filed.|
|Jun 02 2021||Brief of respondent CTIA -- The Wireless Association in opposition filed.|
|Jun 08 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.|
|Jun 15 2021||Reply of petitioners City of Portland, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.