|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.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
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.
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.