|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1401||7th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B).
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 19 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2020)|
|Jul 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2020 to August 24, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 14 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020.|
|Aug 24 2020||Brief of respondents Northwestern University, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Sep 09 2020||Reply of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 05 2020||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 25 2021||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 08 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.|
|Jun 08 2021||Supplemental brief of respondents Northwestern University, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 10 2021||Supplemental brief of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 01 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.|
|Jul 02 2021||Petition GRANTED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Jul 22 2021||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 28 2021||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 21, 2021.|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.