|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-988||9th Cir.||Oct 29, 2018||Apr 24, 2019||5-4||Roberts||OT 2018|
Holding: 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.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on April 24, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor filed dissenting opinions. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Part II.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 22 2017||Application (17A577) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 10, 2017 to January 10, 2018, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Nov 28 2017||Application (17A577) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 10, 2018.|
|Jan 10 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 12, 2018)|
|Feb 06 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 12, 2018 to March 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 08 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 14, 2018.|
|Feb 12 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States America filed.|
|Mar 14 2018||Brief of respondent Frank Varela in opposition filed.|
|Mar 28 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018.|
|Mar 28 2018||Reply of petitioners Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 16 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/20/2018.|
|Apr 23 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018.|
|Apr 30 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 04 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the joint appendix and the opening briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jun 08 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 9, 2018. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2018.|
|Jul 09 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 09 2018||Brief of petitioners Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jul 13 2018||Brief amicus curiae of DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Jul 13 2018||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jul 16 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 16 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Workplace Compliance filed.|
|Jul 16 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States America filed.|
|Aug 20 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 29 2018|
|Aug 30 2018||Brief of respondent Frank Varela filed.|
|Sep 06 2018||Brief amici curiae of Contract Law Scholars filed.|
|Sep 06 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed.|
|Sep 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Sep 12 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 01 2018||Reply of petitioners Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2018||Argued. For petitioners: Andrew J. Pincus, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Michele M. Vercoski, Ontario, Cal.|
|Apr 24 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J. filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., and Sotomayor, J., filed dissenting opinions. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Sotomayor, J., joined as to Part II.|
|May 28 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.