|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-515||6th Cir.||Dec 2, 2013||May 27, 2014||5-4||Kagan||OT 2013|
Holding: Michigan's suit against the Bay Mills Indian Community to enjoin the tribe from operating a gaming facility on non-Indian lands is barred by tribal sovereign immunity.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 27, 2014. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Alito joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 23 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 26, 2012)|
|Nov 3 2012||Waiver of right of respondent Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians to respond filed.|
|Nov 26 2012||Brief of respondent Bay Mills Indian Community in opposition filed.|
|Dec 6 2012||Reply of petitioner Michigan filed.|
|Dec 12 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 14 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 24 2013||Supplemental brief of petitioner Michigan filed.|
|May 28 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.|
|Jun 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 24 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 26 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2013.|
|Jul 26 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2013.|
|Aug 30 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief of petitioner Michigan filed.|
|Sep 6 2013||Brief amicus curiae of State of Oklahoma filed.|
|Sep 6 2013||Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed.|
|Sep 17 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, December 2, 2013.|
|Sep 17 2013||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 19 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Sep 19 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Michigan is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 17 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Oct 22 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Oct 24 2013||Brief of respondent Bay Mills Indian Community filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2013||Letter proposing a lodging of a copy of arguments and decision in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in Chadick v. Duncan, No.15,317 (D.C. March 2, 1894) received from counsel for the respondent. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 31 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Congress of American Indians, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2013||Brief amici curiae of Seminole Tribe of Florida, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2013||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of American Indian Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 5 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from respondent Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.|
|Nov 18 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 22 2013||Reply of petitioner Michigan filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 2 2013||Argued. For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Michigan Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich. For respondents: Neal Kumar Katyal, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 27 2014||Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jun 30 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Released today: annual financial disclosures for eight of the nine justices. Key takeaways: substantial book-royalty income for Sotomayor and Gorsuch; reduced travel reimbursements across the board during the pandemic.
Full story from @AHoweBlogger:
Less travel, plenty of royalties for justices in 2020 - SCOTUSblog
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in an unusual source: the justices’ 2020 financial disclosur...
Opinions next week — Monday and Thursday at 10:00 a.m. ET.
With 21 opinions to go, #SCOTUS enters the home stretch: Opinions expected on Monday and Thursday again next week, at 10 am Eastern both days. Court will also issue orders from today's conference at 9:30 am on Monday, June 14.
NEW: SCOTUS rules against federal government's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Court says a felony involving recklessness does not satisfy the law's "use of physical force" element and thus does not trigger the law's "violent felony" mandatory minimum sentence.
It's a @SCOTUSblog kind of morning
R.I.P. Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. His influence on SCOTUS and American law was enormous.
The Supreme Court will release opinion(s?) at 10:00 a.m. ET. We’ll fire up the live blog at 9:45.
There are 22 outstanding opinions in argued cases including the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ+ / religious liberty, voting rights, and student speech. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-10/
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.