|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-928||5th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether, in light of the Department of Defense having lifted the ban on women in combat, the Supreme Court should overrule Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the men-only draft because women at that time were categorically prohibited from serving in combat roles, and hold that the federal requirement that men but not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 08 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 11, 2021)|
|Feb 01 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 11, 2021 to March 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 02 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 15, 2021.|
|Feb 10 2021||Brief amici curiae of General Michael Hayden, et al. filed.|
|Feb 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of Modern Military Association of America, et al. filed.|
|Feb 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of National Organization for Women Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Feb 23 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 15, 2021 to April 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 24 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 14, 2021.|
|Mar 12 2021||Brief amici curiae of Center for Military Readiness, et al filed.|
|Apr 14 2021||Brief of respondents Selective Service System, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 26 2021||Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 from National Coalition For Men, et al. not accepted for filing. (April 28, 2021)|
|Apr 27 2021||Reply of petitioners National Coalition For Men, et al. filed.|
|May 04 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.|
|May 14 2021||Rescheduled.|
|May 24 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.|
|Jun 01 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.|
|Jun 07 2021||Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kavanaugh join, respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.