|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-936||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.
Issue: Whether a False Claims Act allegation fails when the government continued to approve and to pay for products after learning of alleged regulatory infractions and the pleadings offer no basis for overcoming the strong inference of immateriality that arises from the government's response. CVSG: 11/30/2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 26 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 2, 2018)|
|Jan 16 2018||Blanket Consent filed by counsel for both Petitioner, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Respondents Jeffrey Campie and Sherilyn Campie.|
|Jan 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 2, 2018 to March 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 26 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 5, 2018.|
|Feb 01 2018||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce for the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Feb 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for Government Procurement filed.|
|Feb 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of ConocoPhillips Company filed.|
|Feb 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Biotechnology Innovation Organization filed.|
|Feb 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association filed.|
|Feb 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief of respondents Jeffrey Campie, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 20 2018||Reply of petitioner Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 21 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018.|
|Apr 16 2018||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Nov 30 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States of America filed.|
|Dec 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Dec 19 2018||Supplemental brief of respondents Jeffrey Campie, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 07 2019||Petition DENIED.|
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...
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.