|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-793||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and (2) whether official demands for membership or donor information outside the electoral context should be reviewed under strict or exacting scrutiny.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 18 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2020)|
|Jan 14 2020||Waiver of right of respondent Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California to respond filed.|
|Jan 17 2020||Letter of January 15, 2020 from counsel for petitioner received.|
|Jan 21 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.|
|Jan 30 2020||Response Requested. (Due March 2, 2020)|
|Feb 19 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2020 to April 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 25 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 1, 2020.|
|Feb 28 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed.|
|Mar 02 2020||Brief amici curiae of Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability and Pacific Research Institute filed.|
|Mar 24 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 25 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 1, 2020.|
|May 01 2020||Brief of respondent Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California in opposition filed.|
|May 15 2020||Reply of petitioner Institute for Free Speech filed. (Distributed)|
|May 19 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.|
|May 29 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 23 2020||Supplemental brief of petitioner Institute for Free Speech filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 01 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.|
|Jul 02 2021||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. ___ (2021).|
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.