|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-415||9th Cir.||Apr 20, 2016||Jun 20, 2016||6-2||Kennedy||OT 2015|
Holding: The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” from an employer’s general obligation to pay overtime to employees who work more than forty hours in a week. Because the Department of Labor’s 2011 interpretation of this provision was issued without the reasoned explanation that was required in light of the department’s change in position and the significant reliance interests involved, the provision must be construed without placing controlling weight on that interpretation.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 20, 2016. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 19 2015||Application (15A210) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Aug 20 2015||Application (15A210) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until September 30, 2015.|
|Sep 30 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 4, 2015)|
|Oct 5 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 4, 2015.|
|Nov 4 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Automobile Dealers Association, et al. filed.|
|Dec 4 2015||Brief of respondents Hector Navarro, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 22 2015||Reply of petitioner Encino Motorcars, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.|
|Jan 15 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 29 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents|
|Feb 1 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Feb 29 2016||Joint appendix filed.|
|Feb 29 2016||Brief of petitioner Encino Motorcars, LLC filed.|
|Mar 4 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday April 20, 2016|
|Mar 7 2016||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Mar 7 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Automobile Dealers Association, et al. filed.|
|Mar 14 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Mar 15 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 30 2016||Brief of respondents Hector Navarro, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 5 2016||Brief amicus curiae of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 6 2016||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 6 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 6 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 6 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 8 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 13 2016||Reply of petitioner Encino Motorcars, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 14 2016||Letter, dated14 April 2016, received from counsel for respondents filed. (Distributed).|
|Apr 20 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Stephanos Bibas, Philadelphia, Pa.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae).|
|Jun 20 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Jul 22 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.