|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-123||9th Cir.||Mar 20, 2013||Jun 10, 2013||9-0||Thomas||OT 2012|
Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 4 2012||Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic.|
|May 29 2012||Application (11A1125) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 10, 2012 to August 9, 2012, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Jun 1 2012||Application (11A1125) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 25, 2012.|
|Jul 25 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2012)|
|Aug 21 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 26, 2012.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.|
|Sep 19 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture in opposition filed.|
|Nov 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.|
|Nov 5 2012||Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 20 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 21 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 9, 2013.|
|Dec 21 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 12, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 20, 2013|
|Jan 9 2013||Brief of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed.|
|Jan 9 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed.|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Texas filed.|
|Jan 18 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic.|
|Jan 18 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern Districtof California (Fresno) is electronic.|
|Jan 23 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 4 2013||Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic.|
|Feb 12 2013||Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2013||Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Sun-Maid Growers of California filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 13 2013||Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2013||Argued. For petitioners: Michael W. McConnell, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 10 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 12 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.