|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1500||Conn.||Jan 9, 2017||Apr 25, 2017||8-0||Sotomayor||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) In a suit brought against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, the employee, not the tribe, is the real party in interest and the tribe's sovereign immunity is not implicated; and (2) an indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual employees who would otherwise not be protected.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 25, 2017. Justices Thomas and Ginsburg filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 13 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 13, 2016)|
|Jul 13 2016||Brief of respondent William Clarke in opposition filed.|
|Jul 26 2016||Reply of petitioners Brian Lewis, et al. filed.|
|Jul 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Sep 29 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 07 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Brian Lewis, et al.|
|Oct 31 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Nov 14 2016||Brief of petitioners Brian Lewis, et al. filed.|
|Nov 18 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.|
|Nov 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States, supporting reversal filed.|
|Nov 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, et al. filed.|
|Dec 05 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, January 9, 2017.|
|Dec 07 2016||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Connecticut.|
|Dec 12 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 14 2016||Brief of respondent William Clarke filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Connecticut. (1 Envelope)|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Seminole Tribe of Florida, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of The National Congress of American Indians, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of The State of Arizona and the State of Oregon filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Ninth and Tenth Circuit Tribes filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of The Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Dec 30 2016||Reply of petitioners Brian Lewis, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 09 2017||Argued. For petitioners: Eric D. Miller, Seattle, Wash. For United States, as amicus curiae: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 25 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Ginsburg, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|May 30 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|May 30 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 07 2017||Record from the Supreme Court of Connecticut has been returned.|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.