|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.