|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-433||9th Cir.||Oct 8, 2014||Dec 8, 2014||9-0||Thomas||OT 2014|
Holding: The time spent by warehouse workers waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on December 8, 2014. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 5 2013||Application (13A165) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 1, 2013 to October 3, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Aug 12 2013||Application (13A165) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until October 3, 2013.|
|Oct 3 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 7, 2013)|
|Oct 15 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel or the petitioners.|
|Nov 4 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Jesse Busk, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 7 2013||Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed.|
|Nov 7 2013||Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center Inc., et al. filed.|
|Nov 12 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013.|
|Nov 13 2013||Response Requested . (Due December 13, 2013)|
|Dec 3 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 13, 2014.|
|Jan 13 2014||Brief of respondents Jesse Busk, and Laurie Castro, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 28 2014||Reply of petitioner Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. filed.|
|Jan 29 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Feb 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.|
|Feb 25 2014||Letter of February 25, 2014, from counsel for respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Mar 3 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 26 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 28, 2014.|
|Apr 17 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Apr 25 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents|
|May 9 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 4, 2014.|
|May 28 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|May 28 2014||Brief of petitioner Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 4 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jun 4 2014||Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jun 4 2014||Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed.|
|Jun 4 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Retail Federation filed.|
|Jul 9 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jul 16 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT Wednesday, October 8, 2014|
|Jul 17 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jul 17 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Nevada is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Aug 4 2014||Brief of respondents Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, et al. filed.|
|Aug 7 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 8 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 8 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 3 2014||Reply of petitioner Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 8 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Mark R. Thierman, Reno, Nev.|
|Dec 9 2014||Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined.|
|Jan 12 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.