|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-71||2d Cir.||Oct 6, 2020||Dec 10, 2020||8-0||Thomas||OT 2020|
Holding: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’s express remedies provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities for violating litigants' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on December 10, 2020. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 03 2019||Application (18A1135) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 15, 2019 to June 14, 2019, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|May 08 2019||Application (18A1135) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until June 14, 2019.|
|Jun 03 2019||Application (18A1135) to extend further the time from June 14, 2019 to July 14, 2019, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Jun 04 2019||Application (18A1135) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until July 14, 2019.|
|Jul 12 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2019)|
|Jul 25 2019||Motion of Muhammad Tanvir, et al. for an extension of time not accepted for filing. (July 26, 2019 -- Corrected version to be submitted)|
|Jul 29 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 12, 2019 to October 11, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 02 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 11, 2019.|
|Oct 11 2019||Brief of respondents Muhammad Tanvir, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 30 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.|
|Oct 30 2019||Reply of petitioners FNU Tanzin, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.|
|Nov 22 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 18 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners FNU Tanzin, et al.|
|Jan 06 2020||Brief of petitioners FNU Tanzin, et al. filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.|
|Jan 13 2020||Brief amici curiae of American Atheists, Center for Inquiry, et al. filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||Brief amici curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 28 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Muhammad Tanvir, et al.|
|Jan 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 24, 2020.|
|Feb 05 2020||Brief of respondents Muhammad Tanvir, et al. filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Sikh Coalition filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Jeffrey D. Kahn filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of Statutory Interpretation Scholars filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of Religious and Civil-Rights Organizations filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Muslim Advocates filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of 67 Religious Organizations filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of Fourteen Religious-Liberty Scholars, et al. filed.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations, Public Speakers and Scholars filed.|
|Feb 19 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.|
|Feb 19 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 20 2020||Record from the USCA 2nd Circuit received electronically.|
|Mar 06 2020||Reply of petitioners FNU Tanzin, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2020||ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED.|
|Apr 13 2020||Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020.|
|Jul 13 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 6, 2020.|
|Oct 06 2020||Argued. For petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Ramzi Kassem, Long Island City, N. Y.|
|Dec 10 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Barrett, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jan 11 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.