|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1485||D.C. Cir.||Oct 4, 2017||Jan 22, 2018||9-0||Thomas||OT 2017|
Holding: (1) The police officers had probable cause to arrest several partygoers who later sued for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District of Columbia law, and (2) the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 22, 2018. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 13 2016||Application (15A1050) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 8, 2016 to June 8, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Apr 13 2016||Application (15A1050) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 8, 2016.|
|Jun 08 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 8, 2016)|
|Jun 28 2016||Waiver of right of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. to respond filed.|
|Jul 08 2016||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc.|
|Jul 08 2016||Brief amici curiae of Utah and Seventeen Other States filed.|
|Jul 13 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Jul 18 2016||Response Requested. (Due August 17, 2016)|
|Aug 08 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 16, 2016.|
|Sep 16 2016||Brief of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 04 2016||Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed.|
|Oct 05 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2016.|
|Oct 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2016.|
|Nov 07 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2016.|
|Nov 14 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.|
|Dec 05 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.|
|Dec 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.|
|Jan 19 2017||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. GRANTED.|
|Jan 19 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 17 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 5, 2017.|
|Feb 17 2017||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 12, 2017.|
|Apr 05 2017||Application (16A956) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits from August 11, 2017 to September 1, 2017, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Apr 12 2017||Application (16A956) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file the reply brief on the merits until September 1, 2017.|
|May 05 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|May 05 2017||Brief of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed.|
|May 11 2017||Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Counties, et al. filed.|
|May 12 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 12 2017||Brief amici curiae of Utah and Twenty-Five Other States filed.|
|May 22 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jul 12 2017||Brief of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. filed.|
|Jul 19 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.|
|Jul 19 2017||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Aug 01 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
|Aug 09 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 21 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit is electronic and available on PACER with the exception of one restricted document that is electronic.|
|Aug 25 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Sep 01 2017||Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 04 2017||Argued. For petitioners: Todd Kim, Solicitor General, Washington, D. C.; and Robert A. Parker, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Nathaniel P. Garrett, San Francisco, Cal.|
|Jan 22 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part.|
|Feb 23 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.