|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1017||C.A.A.F.||Jan 16, 2018||Jun 22, 2018||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that petitioners' claims—which asserted that a judge's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies him or her from continuing to serve on either the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii)—were moot; (2) whether these judges' service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies them from continuing to serve on the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether the judges' simultaneous service on both the U.S Court of Military Commission Review and the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals violates the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Dalmazzi v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on June 22, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 21 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2017)|
|Mar 22 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 26, 2017.|
|Apr 19 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 15, 2017.|
|May 15 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|May 19 2017||Reply of petitioner Laith G. Cox filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|Sep 28 2017||Petition GRANTED, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1423 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. In addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the cases in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 under 28 U. S. C. § 1259(3).|
|Nov 07 2017||Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 07 2017||Brief of petitioners filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 14 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai in support of neither party filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018. VIDED|
|Nov 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 07 2017||Brief of respondent United States filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 14 2017||Motion of Aditya Bamzai for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 18 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A for the Armed Forces.|
|Jan 05 2018||Motion of Professor Aditya Bamzai for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for Professor Aditya Bamzai, and 30 minutes for respondent. VIDED|
|Jan 05 2018||Reply of petitioner Laith G.Cox filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the Armed Forces. (2 Boxes). Box 2 of 2 is SEALED.|
|Jan 10 2018||Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2018||Argued. For petitioners: Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, Tex. For Professor Aditya Bamzai as amicus curiae: Aditya Bamzai, Charlottesville, VA. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 22 2018||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jun 25 2018||The record from the Department of the Army has been returned.|
|Jul 24 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us:
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, May 16 - SCOTUSblog
On Monday, May 16, we will be live blogging as the court releases orders from the May 12 conference and opinio...
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.