|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-899||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2013|
Issue: (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes by holding that discretionary decisions by hundreds of supervisors can serve as the basis for a nationwide class action because "Wal-Mart is limited to the exercise of discretion by lower-level employees, as opposed to upper-level, top-management personnel"; and (2) whether a court of appeals may exercise "pendent appellate jurisdiction" to review an unappealable interlocutory ruling that requires the court to decide legal and factual issues distinct from the ruling over which it has jurisdiction and unrelated to the power of the district court to enter the appealable order.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 24 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 27, 2014)|
|Feb 26 2014||Waiver of right of respondents Luanna Scott, et al. to respond filed.|
|Feb 27 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Retail Litigation Center, Inc.|
|Mar 12 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.|
|Mar 21 2014||Response Requested . (Due April 21, 2014)|
|Apr 8 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 21, 2014.|
|May 19 2014||Brief of respondent Luanna Scott, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 30 2014||Reply of petitioner Family Dollar Stores, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.|
|Jun 23 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 30 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Retail Litigation Center, Inc. GRANTED.|
|Jun 30 2014||Petition DENIED.|
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Here’s @AHoweBlogger’s analysis on the Supreme Court’s major NCAA ruling today.
NCAA athletes win 9-0 on educational perks as Kavanaugh calls out ban on direct payments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday reshaped the relationship between universities and the athletes who play college sports. ...
SCOTUSblog is hiring!
We're seeking a new blog manager -- a fun and fast-paced role that includes writing articles, tracking statistics, managing the content on our site, and helping to plan and execute all our news coverage of the court.
SCOTUSblog is hiring a new blog manager - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog is seeking a new blog manager. We are looking for a smart, creative person who is fascinated by the ...
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
The third and final opinion of the day is in U.S. v. Arthrex. In a fragmented decision, the court holds that the appointment of administrative patent judges violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because they are not “inferior” officers. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.