|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1032||10th Cir.||Dec 8, 2014||Mar 3, 2015||9-0||Thomas||OT 2014|
Holding: A lawsuit by a trade association of retailers, alleging that a Colorado law requiring retailers that do not collect sales or use taxes to notify any Colorado customer of the state’s tax requirement and to report tax-related information to those customers and the Colorado Department of Revenue violates the federal and state constitutions, is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 3, 2015. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 16 2013||Application (13A633) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 30, 2013 to February 28, 2014, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Dec 19 2013||Application (13A633) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until February 28, 2014.|
|Feb 25 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 31, 2014)|
|Mar 10 2014||Waiver of right of respondent Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue to respond filed.|
|Mar 26 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Mar 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Council on State Taxation filed.|
|Apr 7 2014||Response Requested . (Due May 7, 2014)|
|Apr 22 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 6, 2014.|
|Jun 6 2014||Brief of respondent Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue in opposition filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 17 2014||Reply of petitioner Direct Marketing Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 31 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 1 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Aug 6 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 9, 2014.|
|Aug 6 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 17, 2014.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 8, 2014.|
|Sep 9 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Sep 9 2014||Brief of petitioner Direct Marketing Association filed.|
|Sep 15 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Professionals in Taxation filed.|
|Sep 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Tax Foundation filed.|
|Sep 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Sep 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Council on State Taxation filed.|
|Sep 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of NFIB Small Business Legal Center, et al. filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Oct 17 2014||Brief of respondent Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue filed.|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, et al., filed.|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief amici curiae of States of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Multistate Tax Commission filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief amici curiae of Interested Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 27 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Oct 31 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit. The record is electronic and located on PACER. One box of records also received from the 10th Circuit.|
|Nov 17 2014||Reply of petitioner Direct Marketing Association filed. (distributed)|
|Dec 8 2014||Argued. For petitioner: George S. Isaacson, Lewiston, Maine. For respondent: Daniel D. Domenico, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo.|
|Mar 3 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, and in which Sotomayor, J., joined in part.|
|Apr 6 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 8 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit has been returned.|
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.