|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-673||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issues: (1) Whether a federal official may retroactively ratify an ultra vires government action when: (a) no federal official was authorized to perform the act at the time it was initially undertaken; (b) the purported ratification does not include an examination of any facts related to the act performed; or (c) the ratification purports to encompass not only the initial act but also federal court rulings entered in response to the act; and (2) whether federal courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution to hear a case filed at the behest of an individual who, from the time suit was filed until judgment was entered, lacked authority to vindicate the executive branch's interest in seeing that the law is obeyed.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 20 2016||Application (16A295) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 18, 2016 to November 17, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Sep 22 2016||Application (16A295) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until November 17, 2016.|
|Nov 17 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 22, 2016)|
|Nov 29 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Dec 15 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 23, 2017.|
|Dec 20 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Jan 13 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2017.|
|Feb 16 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 24, 2017.|
|Mar 27 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including April 24, 2017.|
|Apr 24 2017||Brief of respondent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in opposition filed.|
|May 8 2017||Reply of petitioner Chance E. Gordon filed.|
|May 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.|
|May 25 2017||Rescheduled.|
|May 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.|
|May 31 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 5 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.|
|Jun 7 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 12 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.|
|Jun 14 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 19 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||Petition DENIED. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.