|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-14||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 16|
Issues: (1) What, if any, deference is due an agency's interpretation when it predominately interprets terms of common law in which courts, not administrative agencies, have special competence; (2) whether the circuit court erred when it held, in contravention of this Court's long-standing definition of “common carrier,” that pilots who use the Internet to communicate are “common carriers” when those pilots do not earn a commercial profit or indiscriminately offer to share their travel plans with the general public, thus warranting remand; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Federal Aviation Administration could, consistent with the First Amendment, lawfully discriminate against content-based Internet communications because of the message conveyed and the means chosen by pilots to convey it.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 10 2016||Application (15A1168) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 24, 2016 to June 24, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|May 12 2016||Application (15A1168) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 24, 2016.|
|Jun 24 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)|
|Jun 27 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 25 2016||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.|
|Jul 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Aug 1 2016||Waiver of right of respondent Federal Aviation Administration to respond filed.|
|Aug 10 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Aug 12 2016||Response Requested . (Due September 12, 2016)|
|Sep 8 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 12, 2016.|
|Sep 29 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 14, 2016.|
|Nov 14 2016||Brief of respondent Federal Aviation Administration in opposition filed.|
|Nov 23 2016||Reply of petitioner Flytenow, Inc. filed.|
|Nov 30 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||Petition DENIED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.