Issue: (1) Whether the Court will grant Nebraska and Oklahoma leave to file an original action to seek a declaratory judgment stating that Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution are preempted by federal law, and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; (2) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; (3) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of statutes or regulations promulgated pursuant to Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; and (4) whether Colorado should be ordered to pay the plaintiff states’ costs and expenses associated with this legal action, including attorneys’ fees. CVSG: 12/18/2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 18 2014||Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.|
|Feb 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to the bill of complaint to and including March 27, 2015|
|Feb 19 2015||Brief amici curiae of All Nine Former Administrators of Drug Enforcement filed.|
|Mar 27 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington and Oregon filed.|
|Mar 27 2015||Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed.|
|Apr 03 2015||Reply of plaintiffs Nebraska and Oklahoma filed.|
|Apr 15 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.|
|May 04 2015||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Dec 16 2015||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jan 05 2016||Supplemental brief of petitioners Nebraska and Oklahoma filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 06 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.|
|Feb 08 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 29 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.|
|Mar 14 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.|
|Mar 21 2016||Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint DENIED. Justice Thomas with whom Justice Alito joins, dissenting from the denial of motion for leave to file complaint. (Detached Opinion)|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.