|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 29 2022||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 2, 2022)|
|Jul 29 2022||Application (22A91) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jul 29 2022||Application (22A92) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jul 29 2022||Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner.|
|Aug 04 2022||Response to application (22A91) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 5 p.m. (ET) on Monday, August 8, 2022.|
|Aug 04 2022||Response to application (22A92) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 5 p.m. (ET) on Monday, August 8, 2022.|
|Aug 04 2022||Respondents are directed to respond to the motion to expedite consideration by 5 p.m. (ET) on Monday, August 8, 2022.|
|Aug 08 2022||Response to motion to expedite from respondent Abraham Bielski filed.|
|Aug 08 2022||Response to application (22A91) from respondent Abraham Bielski filed.|
|Aug 08 2022||Letter in response to application (22A92) received from respondents David Suski, et al.|
|Aug 08 2022||Letter in response to motion to expedite received from respondents David Suski, et al.|
|Aug 09 2022||Reply of applicant Coinbase, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 10 2022||Motion to expedite consideration filed by petitioner DENIED.|
|Aug 10 2022||Application (22A91) referred to the Court.|
|Aug 10 2022||Application (22A92) referred to the Court.|
|Aug 10 2022||Application (22A91) denied by the Court.|
|Aug 10 2022||Application (22A92) denied by the Court.|
|Aug 23 2022||Waiver of right of respondents David Suski, et al. to respond filed.|
|Sep 02 2022||Brief of respondent Abraham Bielski in opposition filed.|
|Sep 20 2022||Reply of Coinbase, Inc. not accepted for filing. (Corrected version to be submitted) (September 20, 2022)|
|Sep 20 2022||Reply of petitioner Coinbase, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 21 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.|
|Sep 29 2022||Response Requested. (Due October 31, 2022)|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.