|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-525||5th Cir.||Apr 22, 2019||Jun 2, 2019||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2018|
Holding: The charge-filing precondition to suit set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional requirement.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 2, 2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 18 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2018)|
|Nov 12 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 19, 2018 to December 19, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 14 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 19, 2018.|
|Dec 19 2018||Brief of respondent Lois Davis in opposition filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Dec 26 2018||Reply of petitioner Fort Bend County filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 29 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Lois Davis.|
|Feb 04 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Fort Bend County.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 22, 2019|
|Feb 25 2019||Brief of petitioner Fort Bend County filed.|
|Feb 25 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Feb 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Scott Dodson in support of neither party filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of Center for Workplace Compliance, et al. filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Mar 27 2019||Brief of respondent Lois Davis filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 12 2019||Reply of petitioner Fort Bend County filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 22 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Raffi Melkonian, Houston, Tex.; and Jonathan C. Bond, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 03 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 05 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Justice Department, as expected, says it plans to ask the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
NEW: Biden's commission studying proposals for Supreme Court reform has released 200+ pages of "discussion materials" in advance of its final report, slated to be issued next month. The materials are divided into five categories and are available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/public-meetings/october-15-2021-pcscotus-meeting/
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
Today at SCOTUS: The Biden administration will appear before the justices asking to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- despite Biden's campaign pledge to end the death penalty and the DOJ's recent moratorium on federal executions.
Brett Kavanaugh was back on the bench today after participating in last week's arguments remotely due to his positive COVID test. Here's the full nine-person bench, in a sketch by @Courtartist.
#SCOTUS calls for the views of the US Solicitor General in Epic Systems v. Tata Consultancy Services, re whether a punitive damages award that complies with a state law that caps punitive damages passes constitutional muster