|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1248||9th Cir.||Feb 21, 2017||Apr 3, 2017||7-1||Sotomayor||OT 2016|
Holding: A district court's decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 3, 2017. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 4 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 6, 2016)|
|Apr 26 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 6, 2016.|
|May 6 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed.|
|Jun 7 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including July 6, 2016.|
|Jul 6 2016||Brief of respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in opposition filed.|
|Jul 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Jul 20 2016||Reply of petitioner McLane Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 29 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Oct 27 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Nov 2 2016||Letter from counsel for the respondent filed.|
|Nov 8 2016||Stephen B. Kinnaird, Esquire, of Washington, D.C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the position that a district court's decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena is subject to de novo review. Briefs of other amici curiae in support of the judgment below are to be filed within 7 days of the filing of the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae.|
|Nov 14 2016||The brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is to be filed on or before January 10, 2017.|
|Nov 14 2016||Brief of petitioner McLane Company, Inc. filed.|
|Nov 14 2016||Joint appendix filed. Volumes I & II (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 18 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Nov 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council, et al. filed.|
|Dec 14 2016||Brief of respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.|
|Dec 30 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jan 10 2017||Brief of Stephen B. Kinnaird Court-appointed amicus curiae defending the judgment below filed.|
|Jan 13 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 17 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 17 2017||Motion for allocation of argument time filed by respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.|
|Jan 19 2017||Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Arizona is electronic and located on PACER. Also received are SEALED documents that are electronic.|
|Jan 23 2017||Motion for allocation of argument time GRANTED.|
|Feb 8 2017||Reply of petitioner McLane Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 9 2017||Reply of respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae: Stephen B. Kinnaird, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 3 2017||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.|
|May 5 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.