|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
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.
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.