|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-369||Minn.||Oct 7, 2020||Mar 25, 2021||8-0||Kagan||OT 2020|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.
Holding: The connection between plaintiffs’ product-liability claims arising from car accidents occurring in each plaintiff’s state of residence and Ford’s activities in those states is sufficient to support specific jurisdiction in the respective state courts, even though the automobiles involved in the accidents were manufactured and sold elsewhere.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 25, 2021. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 18 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 21, 2019)|
|Sep 26 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Ford Motor Company.|
|Oct 17 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2019 to November 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 17 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 20, 2019.|
|Oct 21 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Oct 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 20 2019||Brief of respondent Adam Bandemer in opposition filed.|
|Dec 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Dec 04 2019||Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 17 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-368 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jan 17 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-368. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-368. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Feb 21 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 27, 2020. VIDED.|
|Feb 26 2020||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota.|
|Feb 26 2020||The record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the record has been electronically filed.|
|Mar 06 2020||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice Of The Defense Bar filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 09 2020||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Todd County District Court of Minnesota. (1-Box)|
|Mar 19 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Apr 03 2020||ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED. VIDED.|
|Apr 13 2020||Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020. VIDED.|
|Jul 13 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 7, 2020. VIDED.|
|Oct 07 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Sean Marotta, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Mar 25 2021||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Barrett, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. VIDED.|
|Apr 26 2021||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Apr 26 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
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...