Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

Editor's Note :

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-980	6th Cir.	Jan 10, 2018 Tr.Aud.	Jun 11, 2018	5-4	Alito	OT 2017

Holding: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the National Voter Registration Act.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 11, 2018. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

The Annual: OT2017 in Review (First Mondays)
OT2017 #29: "Average Joe" (First Mondays)
Opinion analysis: Justices rule for Ohio in voter-registration dispute (Updated) (Amy Howe)
A "view" from the courtroom: Chipping away at the caseload (Mark Walsh)
OT2017 #11: "Numbing Effect" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Ohio voter-registration practices safe? (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Justices to consider Ohio voter-purge practices (Amy Howe)
OT2017 #7: “Keys to a Valet” (First Mondays)
Justices release January calendar (Amy Howe)
Ohio voter case removed from November calendar (Amy Howe)
In Recess #4: "Stone Soup" (First Mondays)
In Recess #3: "Third Class Webelo" (First Mondays)
Court grants one new case (with no cakes, guns or cell phones involved) (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Dec 02 2016	Application (16A556) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 22, 2016 to February 6, 2017, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Dec 06 2016	Application (16A556) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 6, 2017.
Feb 03 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 10, 2017)
Feb 03 2017	Appendix of Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State filed.
Feb 27 2017	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 31, 2017.
Mar 09 2017	Brief amici curiae of Former Attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed.
Mar 10 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 10 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed.
Mar 10 2017	Brief amici curiae of Georgia and 14 other States filed.
Mar 31 2017	Brief of respondents A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 17 2017	Reply of petitioner Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State filed.
Apr 19 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 10 2017	Rescheduled.
May 15 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017	Petition GRANTED.
Jun 07 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the Petitioner.
Jun 07 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the Respondents.
Jun 22 2017	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 31, 2017.
Jun 22 2017	The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 15, 2017.
Jun 29 2017	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by the parties.
Jul 31 2017	Brief of petitioner Husted, Ohio Secretary of State filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Buckeye Institute filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amici curiae of Georgia and 16 Other States filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amici curiae of Former Attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amici curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed.
Aug 22 2017	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 25 2017	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by the parties GRANTED.
Aug 31 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday November 8, 2017
Sep 07 2017	CIRCULATED
Sep 12 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
Sep 15 2017	Brief of respondents A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 19 2017	Brief amici curiae of Libertarian Party of Ohio, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of American History Professors filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Libertarian National Committee filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of the League of Women Voters of the United States, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Senator Sherrod Brown filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Certain Members of the Congressional Black Caucus filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of National Disability Rights Network, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Common Cause filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of the States of New York, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice \| AAJC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Ohio Elections Officials filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amicus curiae of VoteVets Action Fund filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2017	Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 10 2017	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Oct 16 2017	Reply of petitioner Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State filed. (Distributed)
Oct 27 2017	Letter from counsel for respondents relating to oral argument filed.
Oct 27 2017	This case is removed from the oral argument calendar for November 8, 2017.
Nov 17 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Nov 22 2017	CIRCULATED.
Dec 18 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic.
Jan 10 2018	Argued. For petitioner: Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor for State of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Paul M. Smith, Washington, D. C.
Jun 11 2018	Judgment REVERSED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jul 13 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
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 Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73