|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1036||5th Cir.||Nov 6, 2013||Jan 14, 2014||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2013|
Holding: Under the Class Action Fairness Act, because Mississippi is the only named plaintiff, the suit does not qualify as a "mass actions" – that is, a civil action "in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiff's claims involve common questions of law or fact."
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 14, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 19 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 25, 2013)|
|Mar 22 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 24, 2013.|
|Mar 25 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Apr 24 2013||Brief of respondents AU Optronics Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 6 2013||Reply of petitioner Mississippi, ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)|
|May 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 23, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2013.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2013.|
|Jul 22 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 22 2013||Brief of petitioner Mississippi, ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General filed.|
|Jul 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Illinois and 45 Other States filed.|
|Jul 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed.|
|Jul 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Center for State Enforcement of Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 6, 2013.|
|Sep 3 2013||Brief of respondents AU Optronics Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2013||Brief amici curiae of Access to Courts Initiative, Inc., and National Association of Manufacturers filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Allstate Insurance Company filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2013||Brief amici curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2013||Records from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit and U.S.D.C. for Southern District of Mississippi are electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 3 2013||Reply of petitioner Mississippi, ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 6 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Jonathan S. Massey, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Christopher M. Curran, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 14 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Feb 18 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...