Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-649	3d Cir.	Dec 7, 2016 Tr.Aud.	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.

Opinion analysis: Bankruptcy priority rules may not be evaded in Chapter 11 structured dismissals (Daniel Bussel)
Argument analysis: Narrow reversal in Jevic seems likely (Daniel Bussel)
Argument preview: Dismissing Chapter 11 (Daniel Bussel)
Court to hear major new controversies -- next Term (Lyle Denniston)
Solicitor General responds to the Court's invitations (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 44

Cases decided 11

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	44
Cases decided	11
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)