|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-457||N.C.||Apr 16, 2019||Jun 21, 2019||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2018|
Holding: The presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 21, 2019. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 22 2018||Application (18A210) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 6, 2018 to October 9, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Aug 24 2018||Application (18A210) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 9, 2018.|
|Oct 09 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2018)|
|Oct 16 2018||Waiver of right of respondent The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust to respond filed.|
|Oct 24 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.|
|Oct 31 2018||Response Requested. (Due November 30, 2018)|
|Nov 30 2018||Brief of respondent Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust in opposition filed.|
|Dec 14 2018||Reply of petitioner North Carolina Department of Revenue filed.|
|Dec 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 04 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, North Carolina Department of Revenue.|
|Feb 06 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 16, 2019|
|Feb 22 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief of petitioner North Carolina Department of Revenue filed.|
|Feb 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of Tax Law Professors filed.|
|Feb 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The American College of Trust & Estate Counsel in support of neither party filed.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amici curiae of Minnesota, Nineteen Other States, & the District of Columbia filed.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars in support of neither party filed.|
|Mar 18 2019||Brief of respondent The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the Supreme Court of North Carolina.|
|Mar 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of William Fielding, Trustee filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The New York State Bar Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Washington State Tax Practitioners filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Amicus brief of American College of Tax Counsel not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted.)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American College of Tax Counsel filed (March 25, 2019). (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of South Dakota, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Council On State Taxation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Roberta Lea Brilmayer filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Certain State Trust and Bank Associations filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 05 2019||Reply of petitioner North Carolina Department of Revenue filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 16 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Matthew W. Sawchak, North Carolina Solicitor General, Raleigh, N. C. For respondent: David A. O'Neil, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 21 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Gorsuch, J., joined.|
|Jul 23 2019||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 23 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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...