|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|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.