|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-217||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the affirmation of a good-faith belief that a given use of material is not authorized “by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” required under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, may be purely subjective and, therefore, that an unreasonable belief — such as a belief formed without consideration of the statutory fair use factors — will not subject the sender of a takedown notice to liability under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 18 2016||Application (15A1193) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 15, 2016 to August 12, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|May 20 2016||Application (15A1193) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until August 12, 2016.|
|Aug 12 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 15, 2016)|
|Sep 14 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 26, 2016.|
|Sep 15 2016||Brief amici curiae of Organization for Transformative Works and Public Knowledge filed.|
|Sep 15 2016||Brief amici curiae of Automattic, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 15 2016||Brief amici curiae of Yes Men, et al. filed.|
|Sep 26 2016||Brief of respondents Universal Music Corp., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 11 2016||Reply of petitioner Stephanie Lenz filed.|
|Oct 12 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2016.|
|Oct 31 2016||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 4 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 19 2017||Supplemental brief of petitioner Stephanie Lenz filed.|
|May 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.|
|Jun 12 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.|
|Jun 19 2017||Petition DENIED.|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...