|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.