|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals’ campaign donations implicates the First Amendment’s compelled-subsidy doctrine; and (2) whether a compelled subsidy of speech should be examined under rational-basis review, as the decision below concluded, or whether a higher standard of review is appropriate.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 24 2019||Application (19A345) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 9, 2019 to November 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Sep 26 2019||Application (19A345) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until November 8, 2019.|
|Nov 07 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 12, 2019)|
|Nov 18 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Mark Elster, et al.|
|Nov 20 2019||Waiver of City of Seattle, Washington of right to respond not accepted for filing. (November 26, 2019)|
|Nov 20 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, City of Seattle, Washington.|
|Nov 26 2019||Waiver of right of respondent City of Seattle, Washington to respond filed.|
|Dec 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Dec 10 2019||Response Requested. (Due January 9, 2020)|
|Dec 12 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 9, 2020 to February 10, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 18 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 10, 2020.|
|Jan 09 2020||Brief amici curiae of American Association of Christian Schools, et al filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.|
|Feb 10 2020||Brief of respondent City of Seattle, Washington in opposition filed.|
|Feb 21 2020||Reply of petitioners Mark Elster, et al. filed.|
|Feb 26 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.|
|Mar 18 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.|
|Mar 30 2020||Petition DENIED.|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.