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

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

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

SCOTUSblog Coverage

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 to Court re: Supplemental Authority of Rose Mary Knick submitted.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann
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 additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 41

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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.

Cases argued	41
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 11, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 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