Green v. Brennan

Editor's Note :

Green v. Brennan

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-613	10th Cir.	Nov 30, 2015 Tr.Aud.	May 23, 2016	7-1	Sotomayor	OT 2015

Holding: (1) Because part of the "matter alleged to be discriminatory" in a constructive-discharge claim alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an employee's resignation, the forty-five-day limitations period for contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor for such action (a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit alleging discrimination) begins running only after an employee resigns; and (2) a constructive-discharge claim accrues -- and the limitations period begins to run -- when the employee gives notice of his resignation, not on the effective date thereof.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on May 23, 2016. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion analysis: Pro-plaintiff ruling in federal employment discrimination case (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Choosing a rule in employment-discrimination case (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Justices to consider limitations period for federal employees alleging employment discrimination (Amy Howe)
Congress's power to permit lawsuits at issue (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 2 2014	Application (14A368) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 26, 2014 to November 26, 2014, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Oct 6 2014	Application (14A368) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until November 26, 2014.
Nov 25 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 29, 2014)
Dec 23 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 28, 2015.
Jan 26 2015	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 27, 2015.
Feb 19 2015	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 16, 2015.
Mar 11 2015	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 18, 2015.
Mar 18 2015	Brief of respondent Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General in opposition filed.
Mar 31 2015	Reply of petitioner Marvin Green filed.
Apr 1 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 17, 2015.
Apr 20 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015.
Apr 27 2015	Petition GRANTED.
May 15 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 6, 2015.
May 15 2015	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2015.
Jun 30 2015	Letter from the Solicitor General informing Clerk of their position on the merits.
Jul 6 2015	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received).
Jul 6 2015	Brief of petitioner Marvin Green filed.
Jul 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., and National Women's Law Center filed.
Jul 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The National Employment Lawyers Association filed.
Jul 28 2015	Catherine M.A. Carroll, Esq., of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. Briefs of other amici curiae in support of the judgment below are to be filed within 7 days of the filing of the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae.
Jul 28 2015	Brief of respondent Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General in support of affirmance filed.
Aug 3 2015	The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including September 28, 2015.
Sep 28 2015	Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.
Oct 2 2015	Motion for allocation of argument time filed by respondent Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General (on behalf of the parties and Court-appointed amicus curiae).
Oct 5 2015	Brief amici curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council, et al. filed.
Oct 5 2015	Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 9 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 30, 2015
Oct 19 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit
Oct 19 2015	Record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of 1 Box.
Oct 27 2015	CIRCULATED
Oct 28 2015	Reply of petitioner Marvin Green filed. (Distributed)
Oct 28 2015	Reply of respondent Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General in support of affirmance filed. (Distributed)
Oct 30 2015	Motion for allocation of argument time GRANTED.
Nov 30 2015	Argued. For petitioner: Brian Wolfman, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae: Catherine M.A. Carroll, Washington, D. C.
May 23 2016	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jun 24 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media 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.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions