|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether jail officials who are subjectively aware of a substantial risk that a pretrial detainee will attempt suicide and respond to the harm unreasonably may be held liable when their violation was obvious — as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have held — or whether jail officials who respond unreasonably to the obvious risk should be granted qualified immunity in the absence of a case involving the same facts — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held below; (2) whether the objective standard the Supreme Court announced in Kingsley v. Hendrickson applies to inadequate-care claims brought by pretrial detainees — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 9th Circuits have held — or whether the subjective standard that applies to convicted prisoners also applies to pretrial detainees — as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held and as the 5th Circuit held below; and (3) whether the judge-made qualified immunity doctrine requires reform.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 13 2021||Application (21A81) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 11, 2021 to December 13, 2021, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Oct 21 2021||Application (21A81) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until December 13, 2021.|
|Nov 22 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 27, 2021)|
|Dec 08 2021||Waiver of right of respondent Leslie W. Cogdill, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 15 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.|
|Dec 22 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2021||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2021||Brief amici curiae of Disability Rights Texas, et al. filed.|
|Dec 28 2021||Response Requested. (Due January 27, 2022)|
|Jan 11 2022||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 27, 2022 to February 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 12 2022||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 28, 2022.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.