McBurney v. Young

Editor's Note :

McBurney v. Young

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-17	4th Cir.	Feb 20, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Apr 29, 2013	9-0	Alito	OT 2012

Holding: Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are “fundamental.” The Act also does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause: it neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market; and in any event, a state does not violate the Clause when, having created a market through a state program, it “limits benefits generated by [that] state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve.”

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on April 29, 2013. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

Opinion recap: Only one argument needed (Lyle Denniston)
Argument recap: Agnosticism as an argument (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: How open are public records? (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Apr 20 2012	Application (11A1012) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Apr 25 2012	Application (11A1012) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 29, 2012.
Jun 29 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 6, 2012)
Jul 9 2012	Waiver of right of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. to respond filed.
Jul 18 2012	Waiver of right of respondent Thomas C. Little to respond filed.
Jul 25 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Jul 30 2012	Response Requested . (Due August 29, 2012)
Aug 28 2012	Brief amici curiae of American Society of News Editors, et al. filed.
Aug 29 2012	Brief amici curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), et al. filed.
Aug 29 2012	Brief of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. in opposition filed.
Aug 29 2012	Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. filed.
Aug 29 2012	Brief amici curiae of Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, et al. filed.
Sep 12 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012.
Sep 12 2012	Reply of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 5 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Nov 9 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 14, 2012.
Dec 4 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Mark J. McBurney, et al.
Dec 7 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including December 21, 2012.
Dec 10 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.
Dec 16 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners
Dec 18 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Dec 18 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including December 26, 2012.
Dec 26 2012	Brief of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amici curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 53 Media Organizations, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., and Allied Educational Foundation filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amici curiae of Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed.
Jan 2 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 4 2013	Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the 4th Circuit. 1 Box
Jan 4 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Virginia is electronic.
Jan 10 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jan 24 2013	Brief of respondents Nathaniel L. Young, Deputy Commissioner and Director, Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 30 2013	Proposal from counsel for amici curiae National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. to lodge copies of three letters from local governmental entities referenced in their brief.
Jan 31 2013	Brief amici curiae of Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 4 2013	Letter from counsel for petitioners opposing lodging proposed by National Conference of State Legislatures, et al.
Feb 8 2013	Reply from counsel for amici National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. to petitioner's opposition to lodging proposal.
Feb 11 2013	Respondents' letter in support of lodging proposal.
Feb 13 2013	Reply of petitioners Mark J. McBurney, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Argued. For petitioners: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., Solicitor General of Virginia, Richmond, Va.
Apr 29 2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion.
May 31 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jun 3 2013	Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices met for their March 22 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Frank v. Gaos This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 52

Cases decided 26

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	52
Cases decided	26
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)
Opinions

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)
Opinions

29
Conference