|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-25||4th Cir.||Jan 9, 2013||Jun 17, 2013||5-4||Kennedy||OT 2012|
Holding: An attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the “litigation exception” to the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 17, 2013. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 2 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 6, 2012)|
|Aug 6 2012||Brief of respondent Michael Eugene Spears, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 20 2012||Reply of petitioner Edward F. Maracich, et al. filed.|
|Aug 22 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Sep 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 9, 2013.|
|Nov 9 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Nov 9 2012||Brief of petitioners Edward F. Maracich, et al. filed.|
|Nov 13 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit. (1 box)|
|Nov 16 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 28 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of South Carolina is electronic.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief of respondents Michael Eugene Spears, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 2 2013||Reply of petitioners Edward F. Maracich, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 9 2013||Argued. For petitioners: Joseph R. Guerra, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 17 2013||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 19 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 29 2013||Record returned to U.S. C.A. for 4th Circuit.|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
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.