|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1094||Ok.||Not Argued||Nov 4, 2013||TBD||Per Curiam||OT 2013|
Issue: Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in holding – without analysis or discussion – that the Oklahoma law requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the protocol described on the drugs’ FDA-approved labels is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat., Tit. 20, §1601 et seq. (West 2002), respectfully certifies to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma the following question: Whether H.B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies. Further proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Judgment: Dismissed as improvidently granted. in a per curiam opinion on November 4, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 4 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 8, 2013)|
|Mar 26 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Apr 1 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, et al. to respond filed.|
|Apr 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of Women and Families Hurt by RU-486 filed.|
|Apr 8 2013||Brief amici curiae of Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom filed.|
|Apr 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Apr 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Dr. John Thorp, M.D., et al. filed.|
|Apr 8 2013||Brief amici curiae of 79 Oklahoma Legislators filed.|
|Apr 16 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|Apr 22 2013||Response Requested . (Due May 22, 2013)|
|May 16 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 28, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||Brief of respondents Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 3 2013||Reply of petitioners Terry Cline, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Jun 27 2013||Petition GRANTED. This Court, pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat., Tit. 20 Sec. 1601 et seq. (West 2002) respectfully certifies to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma the following question: Whether H. B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat eptopic pregnancies. Further proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.|
|Oct 29 2013||Answer to certified questions filed.|
|Nov 4 2013||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted.|
|Dec 6 2013||MANDATE ISSUED.|
Released today: annual financial disclosures for eight of the nine justices. Key takeaways: substantial book-royalty income for Sotomayor and Gorsuch; reduced travel reimbursements across the board during the pandemic.
Full story from @AHoweBlogger:
Less travel, plenty of royalties for justices in 2020 - SCOTUSblog
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in an unusual source: the justices’ 2020 financial disclosur...
Opinions next week — Monday and Thursday at 10:00 a.m. ET.
With 21 opinions to go, #SCOTUS enters the home stretch: Opinions expected on Monday and Thursday again next week, at 10 am Eastern both days. Court will also issue orders from today's conference at 9:30 am on Monday, June 14.
NEW: SCOTUS rules against federal government's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Court says a felony involving recklessness does not satisfy the law's "use of physical force" element and thus does not trigger the law's "violent felony" mandatory minimum sentence.
It's a @SCOTUSblog kind of morning
R.I.P. Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. His influence on SCOTUS and American law was enormous.
The Supreme Court will release opinion(s?) at 10:00 a.m. ET. We’ll fire up the live blog at 9:45.
There are 22 outstanding opinions in argued cases including the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ+ / religious liberty, voting rights, and student speech. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-10/
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.