|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-200||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2014|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.
Issue: Whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s regulation establishing a maximum allowable debit card interchange fee, 12 C.F.R. § 235.3, unlawfully permits banks to recover costs forbidden by the governing statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-2(a)(4)(B).
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 30 2014||Application (13A1199) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 19, 2014 to July 21, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jun 4 2014||Application (13A1199) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 21, 2014.|
|Jul 7 2014||Application (13A1199) to extend further the time from July 21, 2014 to August 18, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jul 9 2014||Application (13A1199) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 18, 2014.|
|Aug 18 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 19, 2014)|
|Sep 8 2014||Consent to the filing of all amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Sep 16 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 20, 2014.|
|Sep 18 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Senator Richard J. Durbin filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Ahold U.S.A., Inc. filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||Brief amici curiae of 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Oct 9 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 19, 2014.|
|Nov 19 2014||Brief of respondent Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in opposition filed.|
|Nov 25 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2014.|
|Nov 25 2014||Reply of petitioners NACS, fka National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. filed.(Distributed).|
|Dec 29 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jan 12 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.|
|Jan 20 2015||Petition DENIED.|
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 ...