|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1153||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 4th Circuits, in holding that the petitioners can be compelled to advertise free or low-cost abortion services to all clients; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in not applying strict scrutiny to a law that compels speech and is content-based, in conflict with the decisional law of the Supreme Court.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 20 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2017)|
|Mar 24 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Charles J. McKee, County Counsel of Monterey County, California to respond filed.|
|Mar 28 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Alison A. Barratt-Greene, County of Nevada County, California to respond filed.|
|Apr 11 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Christopher A. Callihan, City of Attorney for the City of Salinas, California, in his official capacity to respond filed.|
|Apr 14 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 24, 2017.|
|Apr 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. VIDED|
|May 24 2017||Brief of respondents State Respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 01 2017||Reply of petitioners Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jun 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 19 2017||Record Requested.|
|Jun 19 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Jun 21 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Sep 21 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 02 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 02 2017||Letter of November 2, 2017, from counsel for respondents received. VIDED (Distributed)|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Jun 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2018.|
|Jun 28 2018||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U. S. ____ (2018).|
|Jul 30 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.