|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1497||4th Cir.||Jan 13, 2015||May 26, 2015||9-0||Alito||OT 2014|
Disclosure: John Elwood, a frequent contributor to this blog, is counsel to the petitioner in the case.
Holding: As shown by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act’s text, structure, and history, the Act applies only to criminal offenses, not to civil claims like those in this case. Moreover, the False Claims Act’s “first to file” bar keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive, not in perpetuity.”
Judgment: Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded., 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 26, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 24 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2013)|
|Jul 16 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 26, 2013.|
|Jul 26 2013||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Defense Industrial Association.|
|Jul 26 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.|
|Aug 26 2013||Brief of respondent United States, ex rel. Benjamin Carter in opposition filed.|
|Sep 10 2013||Reply of petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Sep 26 2013||Supplemental brief of petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 7 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 27 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 10 2014||Supplemental brief of petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 23 2014||Supplemental brief of petitioners regarding intervening decision filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. GRANTED.|
|Jul 1 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Defense Industrial Association GRANTED.|
|Jul 1 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 18 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2014.|
|Jul 18 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 14, 2014.|
|Aug 26 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Aug 27 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party from counsel for respondent.|
|Aug 29 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief of petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Motion to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al.|
|Sep 4 2014||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.|
|Sep 5 2014||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Sep 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Verizon filed.|
|Sep 5 2014||Brief amici curiae of The National Defense Industrial Association, et al., filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 6 2014||Motion to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.|
|Oct 14 2014||Brief of respondent United States, ex rel. Benjamin Carter filed.|
|Oct 21 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Oct 21 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 21 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed.|
|Oct 21 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund filed.|
|Nov 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2014||Reply of petitioners Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Nov 21 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 13, 2015|
|Dec 2 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 2 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Dec 12 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit. The record is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of 1 Box (SEALED).|
|Jan 13 2015||Argued. For petitioners: John P. Elwood, Washington, D. C. For respondent: David S. Stone, Short Hills, N. J.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 26 2015||Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 29 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 21 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit has been returned.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.