|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20A34||4th Cir.||Not Argued||Jan 12, 2021||TBD||TBD||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay, pending appeal, a nationwide injunction by a federal district court in Maryland that prevents the FDA from enforcing requirements that certain medical abortion drugs be distributed only under the supervision of a certified healthcare provider in a hospital, clinic or medical office after a patient signs a form acknowledging that she has been counseled about the drug’s risks, on the grounds that the requirements pose an undue burden on abortion access under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey during the COVID-19 pandemic.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 26 2020||Application (20A34) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Aug 27 2020||Response to application (20A34) requested by The Chief Justice, due Tuesday, September 8, by noon.|
|Aug 28 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Indiana, et al.|
|Sep 08 2020||Response to application from respondents American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. filed.|
|Sep 08 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by New York, et al.|
|Sep 08 2020||Brief of Amici Curiae Medical Associations in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Application for Stay Pending Appeal of Medical Associations not accepted for filing. (September 08, 2020)|
|Sep 08 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by American Medical Association, et al.|
|Sep 10 2020||Reply of applicants Food and Drug Administration, et al. filed.|
|Oct 08 2020||Application (20A34) referred to the Court.|
|Oct 08 2020||The Government seeks a stay of an injunction preventing the Food and Drug Administration from enforcing in-person dispensation requirements for the drug mifepristone during the pendency of the public health emergency. The Government argues that, at a minimum, the injunction is overly broad in scope, given that it applies nationwide and for an indefinite duration regardless of the improving conditions in any individual State. Without indicating this Court’s views on the merits of the District Court’s order or injunction, a more comprehensive record would aid this Court’s review. The Court will therefore hold the Government’s application in abeyance to permit the District Court to promptly consider a motion by the Government to dissolve, modify, or stay the injunction, including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed. See Febre v. United States, 396 U. S. 1225, 1225–1226 (1969) (Harlan, J., in chambers); see also Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 520 (1956). The District Court should rule within 40 days of receiving the Government’s submission. JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. (Detached Opinion).|
|Dec 15 2020||Supplemental brief of applicants Food and Drug Administration, et al. filed.|
|Dec 16 2020||Response to supplemental brief requested by The Chief Justice, due Tuesday, December 22, by 3 p.m.|
|Dec 22 2020||Supplemental brief of respondents American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. filed.|
|Jan 12 2021||Application (20A34) granted by the Court. The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the district court’s July 13, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. JUSTICE BREYER would deny the application. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the grant of application for stay. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins, dissenting from grant of application for stay. (Detached Opinion).|
Released today: annual financial disclosures for eight of the nine justices. Key takeaways: substantial book-royalty income for Sotomayor and Gorsuch; reduced travel reimbursements across the board during the pandemic.
Full story from @AHoweBlogger:
Less travel, plenty of royalties for justices in 2020 - SCOTUSblog
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in an unusual source: the justices’ 2020 financial disclosur...
Opinions next week — Monday and Thursday at 10:00 a.m. ET.
With 21 opinions to go, #SCOTUS enters the home stretch: Opinions expected on Monday and Thursday again next week, at 10 am Eastern both days. Court will also issue orders from today's conference at 9:30 am on Monday, June 14.
NEW: SCOTUS rules against federal government's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Court says a felony involving recklessness does not satisfy the law's "use of physical force" element and thus does not trigger the law's "violent felony" mandatory minimum sentence.
It's a @SCOTUSblog kind of morning
R.I.P. Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. His influence on SCOTUS and American law was enormous.
The Supreme Court will release opinion(s?) at 10:00 a.m. ET. We’ll fire up the live blog at 9:45.
There are 22 outstanding opinions in argued cases including the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ+ / religious liberty, voting rights, and student speech. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-10/
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.