|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1108||5th Cir.||Not Argued||Nov 2, 2020||7-1||Per Curiam||OT 2020|
Holding: Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit should not have ventured into such an uncertain area of state tort law without first using state certification procedures to seek guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Judgment: Granted, vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on November 2, 2020. Justice Thomas dissented. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 05 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 9, 2020)|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief of respondent Black Lives Matter Global Network, Inc. in support filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Amicus brief of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not accepted for filing. (April 15, 2020)|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amicus curiae of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amici curiae of Floyd Abrams, et al. filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Howard University Human and Civil Rights Clinic filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars filed.|
|Apr 09 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Apr 13 2020||Waiver of right of respondent John Doe to respond filed.|
|Apr 28 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.|
|May 11 2020||Response Requested. (Due June 10, 2020)|
|May 29 2020||Brief of respondent John Doe in opposition filed.|
|Jun 17 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Jun 19 2020||Reply of petitioner DeRay Mckesson filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 05 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.|
|Oct 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.|
|Oct 26 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.|
|Nov 02 2020||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice Thomas dissents. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Dec 04 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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 ...
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.