|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-481||8th Cir.||Apr 22, 2019||Jun 24, 2019||6-3||Gorsuch||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.
Holding: Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 24, 2019. Justice Breyer filed and opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 07 2018||Application (18A146) to recall and stay mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.|
|Aug 09 2018||UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, case No. 17-1346, is hereby recalled and stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, August 16, 2018, by 4 p.m. The reply, if any, is to be filed by 4 p.m., Tuesday, August 21, 2018.|
|Aug 16 2018||Response to application from respondent Argus Leader Media, D/B/A Argus Leader filed.|
|Aug 21 2018||Reply of applicant Food Marketing Institute filed.|
|Aug 29 2018||Application (18A146) referred to the Court.|
|Aug 29 2018||Application (18A146) granted by the Court. The application to recall and stay the mandate, presented to Justice Gorsuch and by him referred to the Court, is granted, and the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in case No. 17-1346 is recalled and stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. 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 Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.|
|Oct 11 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2018)|
|Oct 25 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2018 to December 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 29 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2018.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amici curiae of Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks & Aquariums, et al. filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. filed.|
|Nov 20 2018||Consent to change of Respondent's counsel of record of Argus Leader Media, d/b/a Argus Leader not accepted for filing. (November 27, 2018 -- Document not of the type that is to be filed electronically)|
|Dec 14 2018||Brief of respondent Argus Leader Media, d/b/a Argus Leader in opposition filed.|
|Dec 24 2018||Reply of petitioner Food Marketing Institute filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 30 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Argus Leader Media, d/b/a Argus Leader.|
|Jan 31 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Food Marketing Institute.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 22, 2019|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief of petitioner Food Marketing Institute filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Joint appendix filed (2 vols).|
|Feb 21 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. filed.|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief amici curiae of Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks & Aquariums, et al. filed.|
|Mar 18 2019||Brief of respondent Argus Leader Media, d/b/a Argus Leader filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Mar 22 2019||Brief amici curiae of Cause of Action Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of New Hampshire Right to Life filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Public Citizen, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Collaboration for Research Integrity filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press & 36 Media Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Detention Watch Network, Human Rights Defense Center and Prison Policy Initiative filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Affidavit of Service of BioScience Advisors, Inc. not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted).|
|Mar 25 2019||Corrected Affidavit of Service filed with respect to amicus curiae brief of BioScience Advisors, Inc. (March29, 2019).|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of BioScience Advisors, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of AI Now Institute at New York University, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Small Business League filed. (To be Reprinted) (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Small Business League filed. (April 16, 2019) (Distributed)|
|Mar 27 2019||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Dist. of South Dakota Southern Division. (1 Box).|
|Apr 01 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 05 2019||Reply of petitioner Food Marketing Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 22 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Evan A. Young, Austin, Tex.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Robert M. Loeb, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 24 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 26 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.