Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20-536 | Tex. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | OT 2020 |
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment requires courts to enforce express trusts in church governing documents (as some jurisdictions hold, in line with Jones v. Wolf's first safeguard), or whether state law may render such trusts unenforceable (as others hold); (2) whether the First Amendment requires courts to defer to churches on questions of polity (as some jurisdictions hold, in line with Jones’ second safeguard), or whether courts may apply state law to determine the structure of a church (as others hold); and (3) whether the neutral-principles approach may constitutionally be applied — either prospectively or retroactively — to resolve church-property disputes.
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
Oct 19 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 23, 2020) |
Nov 16 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2020 to December 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Nov 17 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2020. |
Nov 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. VIDED. |
Nov 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), et al. filed. VIDED. |
Dec 23 2020 | Brief of respondents The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED. |
Jan 06 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021. |
Jan 06 2021 | Reply of petitioners The Episcopal Church, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Feb 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. |
Feb 22 2021 | Petition DENIED. |
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Good morning. It’s Monday, and it’s March!
At 9:30 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will release orders from Friday’s conference.
At 10:00, the court will consider an appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges. More from George Quillin & Jeanne Gills.
Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges - SCOTUSblog
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s Unite...
www.scotusblog.com
BREAKING: SCOTUS orders California’s Santa Clara County to allow churches to hold indoor services. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent. Here’s the short shadow docket order.
#SCOTUS grants emergency request from northern California churches to allow indoor worship services pending appeal, says result is "clearly dictated" by recent decision. Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf
Just in: SCOTUS opinions expected next Thursday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning, March 1, at 9:30 am, with opinions again on Thursday, March 4, at 10 am. Justices will also hear oral arguments next week, including in Arizona voting dispute on Tuesday.
Apparently all the action today at #SCOTUS was not limited to opinion announcements at 10 am. Major new cert. petition filed today challenging Harvard admissions policy. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1364962610177843210
NEW: Supreme Court asked to outlaw race-based college admissions. Group challenging Harvard admissions policy says it files appeal asking court to over 2003 Grutter decision.
SCOTUS rules against a college student who tried to sue police officers after they mistook him for a criminal suspect and tackled/beat him. The unanimous ruling involves a technical interpretation of the "judgment bar" under the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
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.