|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether a state governor’s order mandating that private healthcare employers, on penalty of revocation of their business licenses, terminate their healthcare workers who are not fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and deny any worker’s request for religious accommodation from the mandate while allowing medical exemptions from the mandate, violates the employers’ and employees’ rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment; (2) whether, under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, a state governor’s order mandating that private healthcare employers, on penalty of revocation of their business licenses, terminate their healthcare workers who are not fully vaccinated for COVID-19 with no opportunity for any worker to seek a religious accommodation from the mandate, is preempted by the religious accommodation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (3) whether Article III courts have incidental equitable powers to grant preliminary injunctive relief to employees in aid of their Title VII remedies when the harm suffered by the employees in the absence of injunctive relief has a chilling effect on their religious free exercise and protection from religious discrimination.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 20 2021||Application (21A90) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Oct 20 2021||Response to application (21A90) requested by Justice Breyer, due Monday, October 25, by noon.|
|Oct 22 2021||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by religious and civil rights organizations.|
|Oct 25 2021||Response to application from respondents MaineHealth, et al. filed.|
|Oct 25 2021||Response to application from respondents Janet T. Mills, et al. filed.|
|Oct 25 2021||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.|
|Oct 27 2021||Reply of applicants John Does 1-3, et al. filed.|
|Oct 29 2021||Application (21A90) referred to the Court.|
|Oct 29 2021||Application (21A90) denied by the Court. The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is denied. JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting from the denial of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion).|
|Nov 11 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 15, 2021)|
|Nov 17 2021||Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioners John Does 1–3, et al.|
|Nov 22 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 15, 2021 to January 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 22 2021||Response to motion from respondents Janet T. Mills, Jeanne M. Lambrew, Nirav D. Shah filed.|
|Nov 23 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 15, 2021 to January 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 23 2021||Response to motion from respondents MaineHealth; Genesis HealthCare of Maine LLC, et al. filed.|
|Nov 24 2021||The motions to extend the time to file responses are denied.|
|Nov 24 2021||Reply in support of motion to expedite consideration of petition filed.|
|Dec 06 2021||Motion expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari DENIED.|
Today at SCOTUS: The final two arguments of 2021, and they're both biggies. One case involves a state's refusal to provide funds to religious schools. The other involves the right to an effective lawyer -- and what happens post-conviction if that right was potentially violated.
Today at SCOTUS: One argument in a case about what counts as a "crime of violence" under a federal statute. Specifically, if a person attempts to commit robbery but doesn't succeed, is the attempt itself a violent crime? Our preview from @jamesromoser:
Botched robbery leads to latest test of what constitutes “crime of violence” - SCOTUSblog
If a person attempts to commit a robbery but does not succeed, is the attempt alone a “crime of violence&#...
JUST IN: The court says it will continue its current COVID protocols for oral arguments in January and February. The court will continue to provide a live audio stream of all arguments, and the courtroom will remain closed to the public.
A relatively humdrum Monday-morning order list today. No new cases added to the court's docket. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120621zor_7lio.pdf
#SCOTUS releases orders from last week's conference, but no new grants today. Here's the full list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120621zor_7lio.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: At 9:30 a.m. EST, the court will release orders from Friday's private conference. Then, starting at 10 a.m., the court will hear arguments in two cases -- one involving immigration and the other involving the management of employee retirement plans.
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...