|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-627||1st Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether persons with Article III standing to object to criminal subpoenas of confidential information have a First Amendment or Due Process right to be heard and to present evidence in support of their objections; and (2) whether the lower court applied the correct legal standard to subpoenas issued by foreign governments pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and 18 U.S.C. § 3512.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 28 2012||Application (12A310) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Oct 1 2012||UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, case Nos. 11-2511 and 12-1159, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Thursday, October 11, 2012, by 4 p.m., and further order of Justice Breyer or of the Court.|
|Oct 11 2012||Response to application from respondent United States, et al. filed.|
|Oct 15 2012||Reply of applicant Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre filed.|
|Oct 17 2012||Application (12A310) granted by Justice Breyer. UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, the response filed thereto, and the reply, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, case Nos. 11-2511 and 12-1159, is hereby stayed until November 16, 2012. If the applicants file a petition for a writ of certiorari on or before that date, then the mandate of the First Circuit is further stayed until the petition is resolved by this Court. Should the petition be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. If the applicants do not file a petition for certiorari on or before November 16, then the stay shall expire at 5 p.m. that day.|
|Nov 16 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 19, 2012)|
|Nov 29 2012||Waiver of right of respondents United States, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief amici curiae of The Ancient Order of Hibernians, et al.|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression filed.|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed.|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief amici curiae of Social Science Scholars filed.|
|Dec 21 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 31, 2013.|
|Jan 28 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 4, 2013.|
|Mar 4 2013||Brief of respondents United States, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 15 2013||Motion to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioners.|
|Mar 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Apr 15 2013||Motion to defer consideration filed by petitioner DENIED.|
|Apr 15 2013||Petition DENIED.|
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Here’s @AHoweBlogger’s analysis on the Supreme Court’s major NCAA ruling today.
NCAA athletes win 9-0 on educational perks as Kavanaugh calls out ban on direct payments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday reshaped the relationship between universities and the athletes who play college sports. ...
SCOTUSblog is hiring!
We're seeking a new blog manager -- a fun and fast-paced role that includes writing articles, tracking statistics, managing the content on our site, and helping to plan and execute all our news coverage of the court.
SCOTUSblog is hiring a new blog manager - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog is seeking a new blog manager. We are looking for a smart, creative person who is fascinated by the ...
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
The third and final opinion of the day is in U.S. v. Arthrex. In a fragmented decision, the court holds that the appointment of administrative patent judges violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because they are not “inferior” officers. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.
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.