|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)|
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 ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.