|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-81||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether the 2006 version of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 exceeds Congress’ enforcement powers under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments given that: (a) Congress retained a three-decade-old formula for selecting the jurisdictions that will be covered by the preclearance procedure; and (b) Congress significantly expanded the substantive standard for denying preclearance by abrogating two of the Court’s decisions that had narrowly construed it; (2) whether the Justice Department mooted petitioners’ appeal when it unilaterally purported to “reconsider” and “withdraw” the particular preclearance objection that was injuring petitioners, but failed to demonstrate that Section 5 could not reasonably be expected to injure petitioners in the future.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 20 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 20, 2012)|
|Jul 20 2012||Appendix of John Nix, et al. filed.|
|Aug 9 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Defendant- Intervenor respondents Joseph M.Tyson, et al.|
|Aug 15 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 19, 2012, for all respondents.|
|Aug 20 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 17 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including September 24, 2012.|
|Sep 19 2012||Brief of respondents Intervenor respondents Joseph M. Tyson, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 24 2012||Brief of respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|Oct 9 2012||Reply of petitioners John Nix, et al. filed.|
|Oct 10 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012.|
|Nov 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2012.|
|Nov 13 2012||Petition DENIED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
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...
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.