|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-457||9th Cir.||Mar 21, 2017||Jun 12, 2017||8-0||Ginsburg||OT 2016|
Holding: Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification (or, as in this case, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 12, 2017. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 9 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2015)|
|Oct 28 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2015.|
|Oct 28 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 11 2015||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Dec 14 2015||Brief of respondents Seth Baker, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 22 2015||Reply of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.|
|Jan 15 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.|
|Feb 23 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Mar 2 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 11, 2016.|
|Mar 2 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 16, 2016.|
|Mar 11 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Mar 11 2016||Brief of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed.|
|Mar 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Mar 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure Scholars filed.|
|May 16 2016||Brief of respondents Seth Baker, et al. filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amici curiae of Complex Litigation Law Professors filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed.|
|Feb 3 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 21, 2017|
|Feb 3 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 6 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER. Also received SEALED pleadings.|
|Feb 9 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 21 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondents: Peter K. Stris, Los Angeles, Cal.|
|Jun 12 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jul 14 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...
Two days from now, SCOTUS will hear the biggest abortion case in a generation. In a battle over a Mississippi law, abortion opponents are asking the court to end the constitutional right to abortion. Here's our preview of the case, via @AHoweBlogger.
Roe v. Wade hangs in balance as reshaped court prepares to hear biggest abortion case in decades - SCOTUSblog
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would...
JUST IN: One new cert grant this morning: Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. More on the case here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp/
#SCOTUS adds one new case to its merits docket this morning: Berger v. NC Conference of NAACP, in which the justices will weigh in on an effort by Republican legislators in the state to intervene to defend the state’s voter-ID law. Here's the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112421zr_7li8.pdf