|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-438||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) bars courts from deciding the limits of federal power to enact a novel and unprecedented law that forces individuals into the stream of commerce and coerces employers to reorder their business to enter into a government-mandated and heavily regulated health insurance program when the challenged mandates are penalties, not taxes, where the government argues Congress never intended the AIA to apply, and where the petitioners are currently being forced to comply with various parts of the law and thus have no other alternative remedy but the present action; (2) whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by enacting a novel and unprecedented law that forces individuals who otherwise are not market participants to enter the stream of commerce and purchase a comprehensive but vaguely defined and burdensome health insurance product, and if so, to what extent can this essential part of the statutory scheme be severed; and (3) whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by enacting a novel and unprecedented law that forces private employers into the health insurance market and requires them to enter into third-party contracts to provide a comprehensive but a vaguely defined health insurance product to their employees and extended beneficiaries, and if so, to what extent can this essential part of the statutory scheme be severed.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 7 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 10, 2011)|
|Oct 18 2011||Brief of respondents Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.|
|Oct 26 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2011.|
|Oct 28 2011||Reply of petitioners Liberty University, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 9 2011||Letter of November 9, 2011, received from counsel for the petitioners. (Distributed)|
|Jun 25 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 28, 2012.|
|Jun 29 2012||Petition DENIED.|
|Jul 23 2012||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Aug 9 2012||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Sep 17 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Oct 1 2012||The respondents are requested to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days (Response due October 31, 2012).|
|Oct 31 2012||Brief of respondents Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.|
|Nov 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.|
|Nov 26 2012||The petition for rehearing is granted. The order entered June 29, 2012, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___ (2012).|
|Dec 28 2012||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the Supreme Court will hand down one or more opinions in argued cases.
We’ll be live blogging through it at 9:45 with @AHoweBlogger, Mark Walsh, and @jamesromoser.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, March 4 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, March 4, as the court releases opinions from the 2020-21 term. This live ...
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
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.