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 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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

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	Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 4, 2017 to January 3, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Nov 29 2017	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Township of Scott, PA.
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 amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Dec 04 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Dec 04 2017	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders 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 Washington Legal Foundation, et al filed.
Jun 01 2018	Brief amici curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and CATL Fund 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 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Jun 04 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas and Oklahoma filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund and Inversecondemnation.com filed.
Jun 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. 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 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.
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 States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 06 2018	Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, 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 respondents Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30 2018	Supplemental letter brief of United States as amicus curiae 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 respondents Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2018	Supplemental reply letter brief of United States as amicus curiae 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 analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon – Evan Lee

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 April 18 conference on Monday; the justices agreed to decide Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., and Barton v. Barr. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston.
On Tuesday, the justices dismissed Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian as improvidently granted.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinion in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday morning, the justices heard oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York. On Tuesday afternoon, they heard argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices meet for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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
- Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- 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.
- City of Newport Beach, California v. Vos (1) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody; (2) whether, under the Fourth Amendment “totality of the circumstances” analysis for assessing the reasonableness of force used against a suspect who attacks law enforcement officers, a court must take into account allegedly unreasonable police conduct that took place before the use of force, but foreseeably created the need to use that force; and (3) whether, under the Fourth Amendment’s analysis for use of force, a law enforcement officer’s interest in using deadly force against a suspect threatening an officer’s life is diminished if the assailant is mentally ill.
- Dahne v. Richey Whether prison inmates have a First Amendment right to include threatening, abusive and irrelevant language in grievances.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489) Opinions	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

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	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

Breaking News :

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon – Evan Lee

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 26, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award