|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-306||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2013|
Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to force employers to buy or provide employees with government defined health insurance at a rate the government defines as affordable with no option to discontinue coverage without facing excessive punitive fines; (2) whether Congress has authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause to impose excessive punitive fines on employers enforced by the Departments of Treasury and Labor for failing or refusing to buy or provide government defined health insurance at a rate the government defines as affordable with no option to discontinue coverage without facing excessive punitive fines; (3) whether the Employer Mandate and its implementing regulations violate the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion Clause by forcing religious employers to buy or provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices to their employees despite their sincerely-held religious beliefs that prevent them from doing so; (4) whether the Individual Mandate violates the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion Clause by forcing certain individuals to make a monthly payment that directly funds abortion contrary to their sincerely-held religious beliefs that prevent them from doing so; and (5) whether the Fourth Circuit erred when it refused to review the Employer Mandate and its implementing regulations as they existed at the time of the Circuit Court’s review, which included regulatory definitions of preventive care services that Congress determined had to be provided as part of minimum essential health insurance coverage, which include, inter alia, that employers must buy or provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices to their employees.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 5 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 9, 2013)|
|Oct 4 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 8, 2013.|
|Oct 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.|
|Oct 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. filed.|
|Oct 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Oct 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.|
|Oct 21 2013||Brief of respondents Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 1 2013||Reply of petitioners Liberty University, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013.|
|Dec 2 2013||Petition DENIED.|
NEW: The Justice Department, as expected, says it plans to ask the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
NEW: Biden's commission studying proposals for Supreme Court reform has released 200+ pages of "discussion materials" in advance of its final report, slated to be issued next month. The materials are divided into five categories and are available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/public-meetings/october-15-2021-pcscotus-meeting/
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
Today at SCOTUS: The Biden administration will appear before the justices asking to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- despite Biden's campaign pledge to end the death penalty and the DOJ's recent moratorium on federal executions.
Brett Kavanaugh was back on the bench today after participating in last week's arguments remotely due to his positive COVID test. Here's the full nine-person bench, in a sketch by @Courtartist.
#SCOTUS calls for the views of the US Solicitor General in Epic Systems v. Tata Consultancy Services, re whether a punitive damages award that complies with a state law that caps punitive damages passes constitutional muster