|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1702||2d Cir.||Feb 25, 2019||Jun 17, 2019||5-4||Kavanaugh||OT 2018|
Holding: Manhattan Community Access Corp., a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed in part and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 17, 2019. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 21 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 25, 2018)|
|Jul 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 25, 2018 to August 24, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2018.|
|Jul 20 2018||Blanket Consent received from counsel for Petitioners, Manhattan Community Access Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Jul 25 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Jul 25 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Chicago Access Corporation.|
|Aug 22 2018||Brief of respondents Deedee Halleck, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 04 2018||Reply of petitioners Manhattan Community Access Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Sep 05 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Oct 01 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.|
|Oct 09 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.|
|Oct 12 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Chicago Access Corporation GRANTED.|
|Oct 12 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 24 2018||Joint motion of the parties for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Nov 08 2018||Joint supplement to motion for extension of time filed.|
|Nov 15 2018||Joint motion of the parties to file the brief on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 4, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 11, 2019. The reply brief is to be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.|
|Dec 04 2018||Brief of petitioners Manhattan Community Access Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 04 2018||Joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Internet Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chicago Access Corporation filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of NCTA – The Internet & Television Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation and TechFreedom filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, February 25, 2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.|
|Jan 11 2019||Brief of respondents DeeDee Halleck, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 14 2019||Record request from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit is electronic.|
|Jan 15 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Alliance for Community Media, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Police Accountability Project filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of New York County Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 11 2019||Reply of petitioners Manhattan Community Access Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Michael B. de Leeuw, New York, N. Y. For respondents: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 17 2019||Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 19 2019||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.