|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-894||Fed. Cir.||Nov 4, 2014||Jan 21, 2015||7-2||Roberts||OT 2014|
Holding: A federal air marshal who publicly disclosed that the TSA had decided to cut costs by removing air marshals from certain long-distance flights is entitled to protection under the federal whistleblower statute because his disclosure does not fall within the statute’s exception for disclosures “specifically prohibited by law.” Although the disclosure was specifically prohibited by a TSA regulation, the exception does not apply to rules and regulations, nor was it specifically prohibited by the statute that authorized the TSA to promulgate those regulations.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on January 21, 2015. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 18 2013||Application (13A503) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 28, 2013 to December 28, 2013, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Nov 19 2013||Application (13A503) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 28, 2013.|
|Dec 17 2013||Application (13A503) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 28, 2013 to January 27, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 18 2013||Application (13A503) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 27, 2014.|
|Jan 27 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 26, 2014)|
|Feb 14 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 28, 2014.|
|Mar 28 2014||Brief of respondent Robert J. MacLean in opposition filed.|
|Apr 15 2014||Reply of petitioner Department of Homeland Security filed.|
|Apr 16 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014.|
|May 5 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.|
|May 19 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|May 30 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 25, 2014.|
|May 30 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 22, 2014.|
|Jun 27 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 25 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 25 2014||Brief of petitioner Department of Homeland Security filed.|
|Aug 19 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. for the Federal Circuit.|
|Sep 9 2014||The Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of David B. Nolan, Sr. filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief of respondent Robert J. MacLean filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States Office of Special Counsel filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Government Employees filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Former U.S. Government Officials filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amici curiae of Blacks in Government, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of FlyersRights.org filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Project on Government Oversight filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2014||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 22 2014||Reply of petitioner Department of Homeland Security filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 21 2015||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined.|
|Feb 23 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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!
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.