Issue: (1) Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater; (2) whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and (3) whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents. CVSG: 5/12/2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 01 2014||Documents filed with the Special Master may be found on the Special Master's website at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/special_master/special.htm|
|Jun 06 2014||Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.|
|Jul 17 2014||Order extending time to file response to motion for leave to file a bill of complaint to and including September 5, 2014, for all respondents.|
|Sep 05 2014||Brief of respondent City of Memphis, Tennessee, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division in opposition filed.|
|Sep 05 2014||Brief of respondent Tennessee in opposition filed.|
|Sep 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.|
|Sep 24 2014||Reply of petitioner Mississippi, Plaintiff filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 01 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.|
|Oct 20 2014||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 22 2015||Supplemental brief of Mississippi, Plaintiff filed.|
|Jun 09 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.|
|Jun 29 2015||Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint GRANTED. Defendants are allowed 30 days within which to file an answer.|
|Jul 20 2015||The time to file an answer has been extended for all defendants to and including September 14, 2015.|
|Sep 11 2015||Answer of Defendants The City of Memphis, Tennessee, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division filed.|
|Sep 14 2015||Answer of Defendant State of Tennessee filed.|
|Sep 16 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 9, 2015.|
|Nov 10 2015||It is ordered that the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., of London, Kentucky, is appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings, to direct subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit Reports as he may deem appropriate. The cost of printing his Reports, and all other proper expenses, including travel expenses shall be submitted to the Court.|
|Nov 18 2015||Oath of Special Master filed|
|Nov 05 2020||Report of the Special Master received.|
|Dec 07 2020||The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 45 days. Replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. Sur-replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days.|
|Jan 13 2021||Motion for an extension of time to file exceptions to the report of the Special Master filed by defendant State of Tennessee.|
|Jan 19 2021||Tennessee's January 13, 2021 motion for an extension of time has been granted as follows: Exceptions to the report of the Special Master are due on or before February 22, 2021; Replies are due on or before April 23, 2021; Sur-replies are due on or before June 7, 2021.|
|Feb 22 2021||Exceptions to Report of the Special Master filed by plaintiff Mississippi.|
|Feb 22 2021||Exceptions to Report of the Special Master filed by defendants Tennessee, et al.|
|Mar 01 2021||Brief amicus curiae of International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Assocation filed.|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.