|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-649||3d Cir.||Dec 7, 2016||Mar 22, 2017||6-2||Breyer||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The petitioners -- a group of former truck-drivers for Jevic Transportation, the respondent -- have Article III standing; and (2) bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals of Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases that provide for asset distributions which do not follow ordinary priority rules established by the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of affected creditors.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 22, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 16 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 17, 2015)|
|Nov 30 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Dec 1 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 19, 2016.|
|Dec 1 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Dec 16 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 17 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project and National Consumers League filed.|
|Dec 17 2015||Brief amici curiae of States of Illinois, et al. filed.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief of respondents Jevic Holding Corp., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 2 2016||Reply of petitioners Casimir Czyzewski, et al. filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 29 2016||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 6 2016||Supplemental brief of respondents Jevic Holding Corp., et al. filed.|
|Jun 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016.|
|Jun 28 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 26, 2016.|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 12, 2016.|
|Aug 18 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents..|
|Aug 26 2016||Brief of petitioners Casimir Czyzewski, et al. filed.|
|Aug 26 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Aug 28 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Sep 2 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Loan Syndications and Trading Association filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project, et al. filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed.|
|Oct 6 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 12 2016||Brief of respondents Jevic Holding Corp., et al. filed.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors David Gray Carlson, Jack F. Williams, and David R. Kuney filed.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors Jagdeep S. Bhandari, et al. filed.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 28, 2016|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 1 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A 3rd Circuit.|
|Nov 7 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 14 2016||Reply of petitioners Casimir Czyzewski, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 14 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit is electronic.|
|Nov 14 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the District of Delaware is electronic.|
|Nov 18 2016||ARGUMENT date changed. SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.|
|Dec 7 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Danielle Spinelli, Washington, D. C.; and Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Christopher Landau, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 22 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Apr 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.