|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-753||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 16|
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the State of New York from compelling an entire profession, namely individuals who operate family daycare businesses, to accept a mandatory representative for lobbying and contracting with the State over regulations and policies that affect that profession; and (2) whether a private party that violates a citizen's First Amendment rights is immune from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if that party acted with a “good faith” belief that its unconstitutional conduct was lawful.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 9 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 9, 2017)|
|Dec 14 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Dec 29 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 23, 2017, for all respondents.|
|Jan 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jan 9 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief of respondents Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 18 2017||Brief of respondent Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO in opposition filed.|
|Jan 31 2017||Reply of petitioners Mary Jarvis, et al. filed.|
|Feb 8 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.|
|Feb 27 2017||Petition DENIED.|
In clash between private property rights and pro-union interests, the Supreme Court invalidates a California regulation that requires agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto their property to speak with workers. SCOTUS says the regulation violates the 5th Amendment.
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
In the second Supreme Court opinion of the day, the court holds that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) is unconstitutional because of the limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's director.
The Supreme Court issues its opinion in the "hot pursuit" case -- a case about when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. In an opinion by Kagan, the court declines to adopt a bright-line rule on "hot pursuits" of people suspected of misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court will release one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. Join us on the live blog beginning at 9:45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
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.