|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1435||8th Cir.||Feb 28, 2018||Jun 14, 2018||7-2||Roberts||OT 2017|
Holding: Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 14, 2018. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 30 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 3, 2017)|
|May 30 2017||Letter pursuant to Rule 12.6 from counsel for petitioners received.|
|Jun 08 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Jun 12 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State to respond filed.|
|Jun 15 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Joe Mansky, et al. to respond filed.|
|Jul 03 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Cato Institute, et al.|
|Jul 03 2017||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Center for Competitive Politics.|
|Jul 03 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by The American Civil Rights Union, et al.|
|Jul 19 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Aug 04 2017||Response Requested. (Due September 5, 2017)|
|Sep 01 2017||Brief of respondents Joe Mansky, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 14 2017||Reply of petitioners Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. filed.|
|Sep 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Cato Institute, et al. GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by The American Civil Rights Union, et al. GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Center fo Competitive Politics GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 27 2017||Motion for an extension of time filed.|
|Nov 27 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al.|
|Nov 29 2017||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including January 5, 2018.|
|Dec 07 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Joe Mansky, et al.|
|Dec 20 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 28, 2018|
|Jan 05 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 05 2018||Brief of petitioners Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. filed.|
|Jan 05 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Jan 10 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of James Madison Center for Free Speech, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2018||Brief amici curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2018||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Rights Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 17 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1 Box).|
|Feb 05 2018||Brief of respondents Joe Mansky, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, The League of Women Voters of the United States and The League of Women Voters Minnesota filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of States of Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 12 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Legal Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 12 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2018||Reply of petitioners Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Argued. For petitioners: J. David Breemer, Sacramento, Cal. For respondents: Daniel Rogan, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minn.|
|Jun 14 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.|
|Jul 16 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 21 2018||Record from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit has been returned.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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.
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.