|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1225||10th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico violated Paul Hunt’s clearly established rights as a private citizen under the First Amendment by punishing him for his off-campus, political speech.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 30 2020||Application (19A860) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 12, 2020 to April 10, 2020, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Jan 31 2020||Application (19A860) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until April 10, 2020.|
|Apr 10 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 18, 2020)|
|Apr 21 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 18, 2020 to May 29, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 22 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 29, 2020.|
|May 11 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation.|
|May 18 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Speech First.|
|May 18 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by First Amendment Scholars.|
|May 18 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Joseph L. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, et al.|
|May 28 2020||Brief of respondents Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 17 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Jun 18 2020||Reply of petitioner Paul Hunt filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 28 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 05 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.|
|Oct 05 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.|
|Oct 14 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 26 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.|
|Oct 29 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.|
|Nov 04 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.|
|Nov 10 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 16 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.|
|Nov 23 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Speech First GRANTED.|
|Nov 23 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation GRANTED.|
|Nov 23 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by First Amendment Scholars GRANTED.|
|Nov 23 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Joseph L. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, et al. GRANTED.|
|Nov 23 2020||Petition DENIED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.