|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-493||5th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: (1) Whether a jurisdictional determination, that is conclusive as to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, and binding on all parties, is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (2) whether a due process claim against an agency action is subject to the finality requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 28 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 1, 2014)|
|Oct 30 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, In support of either party or of neither party, received from ocounsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 28 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 31, 2014.|
|Dec 1 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 1 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Senator David Vitter filed.|
|Dec 1 2014||Brief amici curiae of Ernest M. Park, and Lauren Kent Park filed.|
|Dec 1 2014||Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. filed.|
|Dec 18 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 30, 2015.|
|Jan 30 2015||Brief of respondent United States Army Corps of Engineers in opposition filed.|
|Feb 10 2015||Reply of petitioner Kent Recycling Services, LLC filed.|
|Feb 18 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.|
|Mar 4 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||Petition DENIED.|
|Apr 16 2015||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Apr 21 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 14, 2015.|
|May 18 2015||The Respondent is requested to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days.|
|Jun 17 2015||Brief of respondent United States Army Corps of Engineers in opposition to the petition for rehearing filed.|
|Jun 19 2015||Reply of petitioner Kent Recycling Services, LLC filed.|
|Jun 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Jul 2 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Jul 8 2015||Letter from the Solicitor General received.|
|Sep 14 2015||Letter dated September 10, 2015, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Sep 21 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 20 2015||Letter dated October 16, 2015, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 17 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.|
|Dec 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.|
|Jun 6 2016||The petition for rehearing is granted. The order entered March 23, 2015, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U. S. ___ (2016)|
|Jul 8 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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.