Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-647	3d Cir.	Jan 16, 2019 Tr.Aud.	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2018

Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that requires property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims; and (2) whether Williamson County’s ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims that assert that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 7th Circuits hold.

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case (Miriam Seifter)
Reargument preview: A new theory of when local-government takings occur (Miriam Seifter)
OT2018 #7: "Now Who's the Legal Realist?" (First Mondays)
Busy afternoon at the Supreme Court: Six grants and one reargument order, but no stay in census dispute (Amy Howe)
OT2018 #2: "Alea Iacta Est" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Weighing federal court access for local takings plaintiffs (Miriam Seifter)
Argument preview: Overruling Williamson County in the “Knick” of time? (Miriam Seifter)
Justices grant review in two new cases (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 07 2017	Application (17A272) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 4, 2017 to November 1, 2017, submitted to Justice Alito.
Sep 11 2017	Application (17A272) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 1, 2017.
Oct 31 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 4, 2017)
Nov 13 2017	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Rose Mary Knick.
Nov 29 2017	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Township of Scott, PA.
Nov 29 2017	Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 4, 2017 to January 3, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Dec 04 2017	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 3, 2018
Dec 04 2017	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders filed.
Dec 04 2017	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Dec 04 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Jan 03 2018	Brief of respondent Township of Scott, Pennsylvania in opposition filed.
Jan 12 2018	Reply of petitioner Rose Mary Knick filed. (Distributed)
Jan 17 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2018.
Feb 20 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2018.
Feb 26 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018.
Mar 05 2018	Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Mar 08 2018	Joint Motion for an extension of time filed.
Mar 09 2018	Joint Motion to extend the time to file the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 21, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 20, 2018.
Apr 30 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Rose Mary Knick
May 02 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
May 11 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association filed.
May 17 2018	Joint motion for a further extension of time filed.
May 21 2018	Joint motion for a further extension of time granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including May 29, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 30, 2018.
May 29 2018	Brief of petitioner Rose Mary Knick filed.
May 29 2018	Joint appendix filed (to be reprinted).
May 29 2018	Joint appendix filed (6/4/18 reprint received). (Statement of costs filed.)
May 31 2018	Brief amicus curiae of American Planning Association in support of neither party filed.
Jun 01 2018	Brief amici curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and CATL Fund filed.
Jun 01 2018	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al filed.
Jun 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund filed.
Jun 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Jun 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Ohio Farm Bureau Federation filed.
Jun 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of AARP and AARP Foundation filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of Congressmen King, et al. filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas and Oklahoma filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund and Inversecondemnation.com filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al. filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jul 09 2018	SET FOR ARGUMENT On Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Jul 30 2018	Brief of respondent Township of Scott, Pennsylvania filed.
Jul 31 2018	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 02 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Cemetery Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Aug 03 2018	CIRCULATED
Aug 06 2018	Brief amici curiae of Takings and Federal Courts Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Aug 06 2018	Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 06 2018	Brief amici curiae of States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 07 2018	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.
Aug 20 2018	Record received from both the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit, and from the U.S.D.C. Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton) is electronic.
Aug 24 2018	Reply of petitioner Rose Mary Knick filed. (Distributed)
Sep 24 2018	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Oct 03 2018	Argued. For petitioner: J. David Breemer, Sacramento, Cal.; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Teresa Ficken Sachs, Philadelphia, Pa.
Nov 02 2018	This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file letter briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing petitioner's alternative argument for vacatur, discussed at pages 12-15 and 40-42 of the transcript of oral argument and in footnote 14 of petitioner's brief on the merits. The briefs are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, November 30, 2018. Reply briefs, not to exceed 4 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, December 21, 2018.
Nov 28 2018	SET FOR REARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Nov 30 2018	CIRCULATED
Nov 30 2018	Supplemental letter brief of petitioner Rose Mary Knick filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30 2018	Supplemental letter brief of United States as amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30 2018	Supplemental letter brief of respondents Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 06 2018	Supplemental reply letter brief of petitioner Rose Mary Knick filed. (Distributed)
Dec 11 2018	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.
Dec 21 2018	Supplemental reply letter brief of United States as amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2018	Supplemental reply letter brief of respondents Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 11 2019	Letter of petitioner citing new authority not accepted for filing. (Duplicate submission).
Jan 11 2019	Letter of petitioner citing supplemental authority filed. (Distributed)
Jan 14 2019	Letter of respondents in response to petitioner's letter citing supplemental authority filed. (Distributed)
Jan 16 2019	Argued. For petitioner: J. David Breemer, Sacramento, Cal.; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Teresa Ficken Sachs, Philadelphia, Pa.
Jan 18 2019	Letter in reply regarding supplemental authority filed by petitioner. (Distributed)

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74