|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in holding that a refusal-to-deal claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act may proceed despite the presence of valid business justifications for the refusal, in direct conflict with Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko and decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits; and (2) whether the 7th Circuit erred in allowing a plaintiff to avoid the limitations on a Section 2 refusal-to-deal claim by reframing it as some other form of anticompetitive conduct, such as tying, in direct conflict with Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications Inc. and decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 9th and 10th Circuits.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 04 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)|
|Sep 24 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Comcast Corporation, et al.|
|Sep 30 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 13, 2020 to November 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 02 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 12, 2020.|
|Oct 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Oct 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 13 2020||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Economics and Antitrust filed.|
|Oct 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of NCTA - The Internet & Television Association filed.|
|Nov 03 2020||Brief of respondent Viamedia, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 16 2020||Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 17 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.|
|Dec 07 2020||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration of this petition.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.