|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1468||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Nov 6, 2017||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals erred when it held that “federal law” as interpreted by the Supreme Court “clearly” establishes that specific performance of the lower sentence that the parties had originally expected is constitutionally required.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded in a per curiam opinion on November 6, 2017.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 06 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 10, 2017)|
|Jul 06 2017||Brief of respondent Michael Daniel Cuero in opposition filed.|
|Jul 06 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Michael Daniel Cuero.|
|Jul 24 2017||Reply of petitioner Scott Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed.|
|Jul 26 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Sep 05 2017||Record Requested.|
|Sep 05 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic.|
|Oct 02 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 06 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Nov 06 2017||Petition for certiorari GRANTED, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion).|
|Nov 15 2017||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Nov 29 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||Rehearing DENIED.|
|Jan 09 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In advance of tomorrow's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we asked experts and advocates on both sides of the abortion debate to weigh in on how the court should approach the case. You can read our full symposium here:
Symposium before oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...