|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-486||5th Cir.||Not Argued||Oct 31, 2016||TBD||TBD||OT 2016|
Issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in deciding that the relationship between public and private actors does not invoke dual obligations to accommodate disabilities in any context other than an express contractual relationship between a public entity and its private vendor. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot on October 31, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 14 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2015)|
|Oct 21 2015||Waiver of right of respondent Michael Williams to respond filed.|
|Nov 4 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.|
|Nov 9 2015||Response Requested . (Due December 9, 2015)|
|Nov 23 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 8, 2016.|
|Jan 7 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 22, 2016.|
|Jan 22 2016||Brief of respondent Mike Morath, Texas Commissioner of Education in opposition filed.|
|Feb 10 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 26, 2016.|
|Feb 10 2016||Reply of petitioners Donnika Ivy, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 29 2016||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 20 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016.|
|Jun 28 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 22, 2016.|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 28, 2016.|
|Aug 17 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including August 23, 2016.|
|Aug 17 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 29, 2016.|
|Aug 23 2016||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 23 2016||Brief of petitioners Donnika Ivy, et al. filed.|
|Aug 24 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Aug 26 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of Paralyzed Veterans of America, et al. filed.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Association of the Deaf, et al. filed.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Counties, et al. filed.|
|Aug 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of Texas Business Women, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT On Monday, November 7, 2016|
|Sep 7 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 9 2016||Record has been requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Sep 9 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Western Dist. of Texas is electronic.|
|Sep 28 2016||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 29 2016||Brief of respondent Mike Morath, Texas Commissioner of Education filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 14 2016||This case is removed from the argument calendar for Monday, November 7, 2016.|
|Oct 26 2016||Reply of petitioners Donnika Ivy, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).|
|Dec 2 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
BREAKING: The court rules in favor of a Catholic social services organization that sued Philadelphia after the city excluded it from a foster-care program due to the organization's refusal to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
In second opinion of the day, SCOTUS sides with food giants Nestle and Cargill in a lawsuit brought by six citizens of Mali who say the companies facilitated human rights abuses by purchasing cocoa from plantations in Ivory Coast where they were enslaved as children.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejects the constitutional challenge to Obamacare in 7-2 opinion. The court tosses the lawsuit because the challengers do not have legal standing to sue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
With 18 cases outstanding, the Supreme Court will release opinions at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We’re waiting for decisions on the ACA, voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights/religious liberty, NCAA student-athlete compensation, and student speech.
Live blog starts at 9:45.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 17 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, June 17, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases from...
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
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.