|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.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...