|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-997||5th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: (1) Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires Mississippi to exempt physicians at the State’s only abortion clinic from complying with a medically legitimate health and safety regulation that applies to physicians at all other outpatient surgical facilities; and (2) whether Mississippi House Bill 1390, which requires that abortion physicians have admitting privileges at a local hospital to handle complications that require emergency hospitalization, imposes an undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 18 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 23, 2015)|
|Mar 6 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 22, 2015.|
|Mar 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Mar 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Apr 21 2015||Brief of respondents Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 5 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 21, 2015.|
|May 7 2015||Reply of petitioners Mary Currier, Mississippi Health Officer, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|May 26 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 28, 2015.|
|Jun 1 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 4, 2015.|
|Jun 8 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 11, 2015.|
|Jun 15 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.|
|Jun 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.|
|Jun 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.|
|Sep 30 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 21 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2015.|
|Nov 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Jun 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016.|
|Jun 28 2016||Petition DENIED.|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.