Issue: Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 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—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 03 2018||Application (18A350) for a stay, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Oct 05 2018||Application (18A350) denied by Justice Ginsburg. The application is denied without prejudice, provided that the Court of Appeals will afford sufficient time for either party to seek relief in this Court before the depositions in question are taken.|
|Oct 09 2018||Application (18A375) for a stay, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Oct 09 2018||UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 3, 2018, August 17, 2018, and September 21, 2018, are stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before October 11, 2018, by 4 p.m., and further order of Justice Ginsburg or of the Court.|
|Oct 10 2018||Letter of applicants received.|
|Oct 11 2018||Response to application from respondent New York, et al. filed.|
|Oct 11 2018||Response to application from respondent New York Immigration Coalition, et al. filed.|
|Oct 12 2018||Reply of applicants United States Department of Commerce, et al. filed.|
|Oct 12 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.|
|Oct 17 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by California.|
|Oct 22 2018||Application (18A375) referred to the Court.|
|Oct 22 2018||The application for stay (18A375) presented to JUSTICE GINSBURG and by her referred to the Court is granted in part and denied in part. The application is granted as to the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated September 21, 2018, which is stayed through October 29, 2018 at 4 p.m. The application is denied as to the orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated July 3,2018 and August 17, 2018. If the applicants file a petition for a writ of certiorari or a petition for a writ of mandamus with respect to the stayed order by or before October 29, 2018 at 4 p.m., the stay will remain in effect until disposition of such petition by this Court. Should the petition be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The denial of the stay with respect to the remaining orders does not preclude the applicants from making arguments with respect to those orders. Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurs in part and dissents in part. (Detached opinion)|
|Oct 29 2018||Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due November 28, 2018)|
|Oct 29 2018||Application (18A455) for a stay, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Nov 02 2018||Application (18A455) referred to the Court.|
|Nov 02 2018||Application (18A455) denied by the Court. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant the application.|
|Nov 06 2018||The respondents are directed to file a response to the petition on or before 5 p.m., Tuesday, November 13, 2018. Petitioners may file a reply brief on or before 2 p.m., Thursday, November 15, 2018. Amicus curiae briefs may be filed on or before 5 p.m., Tuesday, November 13, 2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||Brief amicus curiae of State of California filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Brief of respondents New York Immigration Coalition, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Brief of respondents State of New York, et al. and Other Government Plaintiffs in opposition filed.|
|Nov 15 2018||Reply of petitioners Department of Commerce, et al. filed.|
|Nov 16 2018||The petition for a writ of mandamus is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. Petitioners' brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, December 17, 2018. Respondents' brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Thursday, January 17, 2019. The reply brief is to be filed on or before Monday, February 4, 2019. The case is set for oral argument on Tuesday, February 19, 2019.|
|Nov 26 2018||Letter of petitioners filed.|
|Dec 12 2018||Motion of petitioners for an extension of time to file the joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 14 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix is granted and the time is extended to and including January 4, 2019.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief of petitioners Department of Commerce, et al. filed.|
|Dec 20 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 19, 2019.|
|Dec 21 2018||Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed.|
|Dec 24 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jan 11 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.|
|Jan 14 2019||Record request from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit is electronic.|
|Jan 15 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 17 2019||Brief of respondents New York Immigration Coalition, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 17 2019||Joint motion of respondents to dismiss as improvidently granted filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 17 2019||Brief of respondents State of New York, et al. filed (with 1 vol. appendix). (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2019||This case is REMOVED FROM THE ARGUMENT CALENDAR for Tuesday, February 19, 2019. The briefing schedule is suspended pending further order of the Court.|
|Jan 22 2019||Petitioners' response to motion to dismiss as improvidently granted filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2019||Reply of respondents to response to motion to dismiss as improvidently granted filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2019||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Jun 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.|
|Jun 28 2019||The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to vacate that court's orders dated September 25, 2018 and October 9, 2018. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).|
|Jul 30 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.