|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-872||7th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2014|
Issue: (1) Whether considerations of “equity, comity, and federalism” insufficient to support abstention can override the holding in Mitchum v. Foster that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an “expressly authorized” statutory exception to the Anti-Injunction Act; and (2) whether, as this Court left unresolved in Hartman v. Moore, officials may be held liable for subjecting citizens to investigation in retaliation for First Amendment-protected speech and association, particularly where non-retaliatory grounds are insufficient to support the investigation.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 21 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 20, 2015)|
|Feb 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 23, 2015, for all respondents.|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Cause of Action.|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Cato Institute.|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Center for Competitive Politics, et al.|
|Feb 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by MacIver Institute for Public Policy.|
|Mar 16 2015||Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by respondents John T. Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf, and David Robles.|
|Mar 16 2015||Brief of respondents John T. Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf, and David Robles in opposition filed.|
|Mar 23 2015||Brief of respondents Francis Schmitz and Dean Nickel in opposition filed.|
|Mar 27 2015||Reply of petitioners Eric O'Keefe, and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. filed.|
|Apr 8 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015.|
|Apr 23 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 27 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.|
|Apr 28 2015||Rescheduled.|
|May 4 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 14, 2015.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Center for Competitive Politics, et al. GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Maciver Institute for Public Policy GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Cato Institute GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Cause of Action GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.|
|May 18 2015||Petition DENIED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.