|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-17||4th Cir.||Feb 20, 2013||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.