|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-18||4th Cir.||Jun 20, 2019||7-2||Alito||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 20, 2019. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Supreme Court and delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 24 2018||Application (17A1175) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 30, 2018 to June 29, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|May 09 2018||Application (17A1175) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 29, 2018.|
|Jun 29 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 2, 2018)|
|Jul 12 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, The American Legion, The American Legion Department of Maryland, and The American Legion Colmar Manor Post 131.|
|Jul 13 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.|
|Jul 25 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law & Justice filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 26 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Military Order of the Purple Heart filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. VIDED.(Corrected brief to be resubmitted)|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of Retired Generals and Flag Officers filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of Major General Patrick Brady and Veterans Groups Erecting and Maintaining War Memorials filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute filed. VIDED|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of 109 United States Senators and Members of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, 27 Other States & the Governor of Kentucky filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of Maryland Elected Officials filed. VIDED|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of Medal of Honor Recipients filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Town of Taos, New Mexico filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2018||Corrected brief amici curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 01 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Prince George's County, Maryland filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||Brief of respondents American Humanist Association, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of State of Maryland filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Veterans in Defense of Liberty, et al. filed.|
|Aug 21 2018||Reply of petitioner Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission filed.|
|Aug 22 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 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.|
|Nov 02 2018||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 17-1717 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Nov 02 2018||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 17-1717. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 17-1717. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the flings is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Dec 21 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Jan 15 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 27 2019||Argued. For petitioner in 18-18: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 17-1717: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae, supporting petitioners: Jeffrey B. Wall, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Monica L. Miller, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 20 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kagan, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. VIDED.|
|Jul 22 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
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...
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.