Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing

Consolidated with:

CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-614	4th Cir.	Feb 24, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Apr 19, 2016	8-0	Ginsburg	OT 2015

Holding: Maryland's regulatory program to encourage development of new in-state energy generation is preempted by the Federal Power Act, which vests in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale electricity rates.

Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on April 19, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: U.S. energy regulators' authority grows (Lyle Denniston)
Argument analysis: Will the new FERC case turn out to be easy? (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: FERC v. the states -- Round 2 (Lyle Denniston)
Court takes on new energy pricing dispute (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 12 2014	Application (14A282) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 28, 2014 to November 27, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Sep 15 2014	Application (14A282) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 27, 2014.
Nov 25 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 29, 2014)
Dec 11 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners Nazarian, et al.
Dec 12 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for petitioner CPV Maryland, LLC. VIDED
Dec 17 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.
Dec 22 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 11, 2015.
Dec 24 2014	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed. VIDED.
Dec 26 2014	Brief amici curiae of The States of Connecticut, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 29 2014	Brief amici curiae of American Public Power Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 11 2015	Brief of respondents PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
Feb 25 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.
Feb 25 2015	Reply of petitioners Douglas R. M. Nazarian, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 23 2015	The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Sep 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.
Sep 30 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 16, 2015.
Sep 30 2015	Supplemental brief of petitioners Douglas R. M. Nazarian, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 19 2015	Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-623 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Nov 9 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including December 8, 2015. VIDED
Nov 9 2015	The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 12, 2016. VIDED
Nov 16 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for petitioners.
Nov 16 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for all respondents. VIDED
Dec 8 2015	Brief of petitioners W. Kevin Hughes, Chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission, et al. filed.
Dec 8 2015	Brief of petitioner CPV Maryland, LLC filed. VIDED.
Dec 8 2015	Joint appendix filed (2 Volumes). (Statement of costs filed.) VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amici curiae of The States of Connecticut, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Public Power Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amicus curiae of NRG Energy, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public Utility Law Project of New York, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amicus curiae of American Wind Energy Association filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amici curiae of Public Service Commission of the State of New York, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Dec 23 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Jan 5 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.
Jan 5 2016	Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Maryland is Electronic and located on PACER. Some of the documents are SEALED and electronic.
Jan 12 2016	Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Maryland. (1 SEALED Envelope)
Jan 12 2016	Brief of respondents Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, fka PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jan 14 2016	Joint motion for divided argument filed by petitioners. VIDED.
Jan 15 2016	CIRCULATED.
Jan 19 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Jan 19 2016	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 19 2016	Brief amici curiae of Leading Economists filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 19 2016	Brief amicus curiae of American Electric Power Company, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 19 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Allco Renewable Energy Limited filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 19 2016	Brief amici curiae of Electric Power Supply Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 19 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Monitoring Analytics, LLC, Acting in its Capacity as the Independent Market Monitor for PJM filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2016	Joint motion for divided argument filed by petitioners GRANTED. VIDED
Jan 25 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. VIDED
Feb 4 2016	Supplemental brief of respondents Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, fka PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2016	Reply of petitioner W. Kevin Hughes, Chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission, et al. filed. (Distributed) VIDED.
Feb 11 2016	Reply of petitioner in 14-623 filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2016	Argued. For petitioners in 14-614: Scott H. Strauss, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 14-623: Clifton S. Elgarten, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED
Apr 19 2016	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED
May 23 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED
Jul 26 2016	Records from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Maryland has been returned.

Featured Posts

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices appear likely to endorse broader reading of FOIA exemption for "confidential" commercial information – Mark Fenster
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 18 conference on Monday; the justices agreed to decide Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., and Barton v. Barr. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston.
On Tuesday, the justices dismissed Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian as improvidently granted.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday morning, the justices heard oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York. On Tuesday afternoon, they heard argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices meet for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- City of Newport Beach, California v. Vos (1) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody; (2) whether, under the Fourth Amendment “totality of the circumstances” analysis for assessing the reasonableness of force used against a suspect who attacks law enforcement officers, a court must take into account allegedly unreasonable police conduct that took place before the use of force, but foreseeably created the need to use that force; and (3) whether, under the Fourth Amendment’s analysis for use of force, a law enforcement officer’s interest in using deadly force against a suspect threatening an officer’s life is diminished if the assailant is mentally ill.
- Dahne v. Richey Whether prison inmates have a First Amendment right to include threatening, abusive and irrelevant language in grievances.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 66

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489) Opinions	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	66
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices appear likely to endorse broader reading of FOIA exemption for "confidential" commercial information – Mark Fenster

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award