|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-918||Fed. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether governmental agency interference with a person’s ability to access and beneficially use his vested water right under threat of prosecution, in part by requiring a permit not authorized or contemplated by any statute or regulation and in derogation of the very nature of the property right, is properly analyzed as a per se taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV Corp. rather than as a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City; (2) whether the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management can alter the congressional grant or recognition of water rights and rights-of-way pursuant to the Act of July 26, 1866 by administratively redefining the scope and purpose of the easements or by superimposing a special use permitting requirement for their maintenance; and (3) whether the fencing of water sources in which Petitioners had stockwater and other rights, intended to and which was sufficient to prevent livestock access to the source for at least a period of time, is a physical taking subject to Loretto and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, without regard to whether some residual amount of water could escape.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 17 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2013)|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Feb 25 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 27, 2013.|
|Feb 25 2013||Brief amici curiae of Public Lands Council, et al. filed.|
|Mar 28 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including April 26, 2013.|
|Apr 29 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 13, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|May 24 2013||Reply of petitioners The Estate of E. Wayne Hage, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|May 28 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.|
|Jun 6 2013||Letter from counsel for petitioner received. (Distributed)|
|Jun 17 2013||Petition DENIED.|
On a special episode of SCOTUStalk: @AHoweBlogger and @TomGoldsteinSB discuss Breyer's retirement and preview the process of selecting his successor.
Listen on your podcast platform of choice, or right here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the-retirement-of-stephen-breyer/
A SPECIAL episode of SCOTUStalk out today: On the man of the moment
The retirement of Stephen Breyer https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the-retirement-of-stephen-breyer/
Alabama executed Matthew Reeves by lethal injection a few hours after SCOTUS, in a 5-4 vote, dissolved a lower-court ruling that said Reeves had a right to select nitrogen gas as his method of execution. Our coverage of the decision, from @ellena_erskine:
Court green-lights Alabama execution in 5-4 ruling that reverses two lower courts - SCOTUSblog
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday evening allowed Alabama to execute a man who argued that the state had faile...
#SCOTUS grants Alabama's request to allow execution of Matthew Reeves to go forward. Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicates that she would have denied the state's request; Justice Elena Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor. Order & dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a372_5436.pdf
In remarks at the White House, Biden calls Breyer a beacon of wisdom on the Constitution and reiterates his commitment to select a Black woman to succeed him. Biden says he intends to nominate a successor by the end of February.
Breyer makes it official: He tells President Biden in a letter that his retirement will take effect at the end of the current term, assuming his successor has been confirmed by then.