|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional and statutory duty to review military decisions under the so-called “Mindes test,” from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision in Mindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking injunctive relief against the military are reviewable so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable political question or otherwise fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal permanent resident enlistees—but not their U.S.- citizen counterparts—to suffer unjustified delays before beginning their military careers is judicially reviewable.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 17 2020||Application (19A808) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 30, 2020 to March 30, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jan 21 2020||Application (19A808) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 30, 2020.|
|Mar 30 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 4, 2020)|
|Apr 17 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 4, 2020 to June 3, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 20 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 3, 2020.|
|May 04 2020||Brief amici curiae of Modern Military Association of America, et al. filed.|
|May 29 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 3, 2020 to August 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 01 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 14, 2020.|
|Jul 28 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 14, 2020 to October 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 29 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 16, 2020.|
|Oct 07 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 16, 2020 to December 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 08 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 15, 2020.|
|Dec 09 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 15, 2020 to February 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 11 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 19, 2021.|
|Feb 18 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 19, 2021 to March 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 19 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 19, 2021.|
|Mar 19 2021||Brief of respondents U.S. Department of Defense, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 06 2021||Reply of petitioners Jiahao Kuang, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 07 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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.
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.