|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.