Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky

Tom Goldstein and David Savage talk through abortion, precedent and the Supreme Court – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant bankruptcy petition – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

May 2019

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

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

Conference of May 16, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-271	9th Cir.	Jan 12, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Apr 21, 2015	7-2	Breyer	OT 2014

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.

Holding: State antitrust law claims are allowed to proceed against gas pipelines for alleged manipulation of market price indices, notwithstanding federal regulation of pipelines under the Natural Gas Act.

Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on April 21, 2015. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.

Opinion analysis: Scaling back federal preemption in energy markets (Jim Rossi)
Argument analysis: The scope of field preemption under the Natural Gas Act (Jim Rossi)
Argument preview: Preemption and the Natural Gas Act (Jim Rossi)
Solicitor General files invitation briefs -- Part 2 (UPDATED June 13, 2014) (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jun 10 2013	Application (12A1194) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 9, 2013 to September 6, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jun 20 2013	Application (12A1194) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until August 24, 2013.
Aug 26 2013	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 27, 2013)
Sep 13 2013	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 28, 2013, for all respondents.
Sep 27 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of Electric Power Supply Association, et al. filed.
Sep 27 2013	Brief amicus curiae of American Gas Association filed.
Sep 27 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Gas Processors Association filed.
Oct 25 2013	Brief of respondents Learjet, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
Oct 25 2013	Brief of respondents Arandell Corp. et al. (Wisconsin Respondents) in opposition filed.
Nov 12 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013.
Nov 12 2013	Reply of petitioners Oneok, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 2 2013	The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
May 27 2014	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jun 9 2014	Supplemental brief of petitioners Oneok, Inc., et al. filed.
Jun 10 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.
Jun 12 2014	Supplemental brief of respondents Learjet, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 24 2014	Justice Alito is no longer recused in this case.
Jun 30 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.
Jul 1 2014	Petition GRANTED.
Jul 17 2014	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 18, 2014.
Jul 17 2014	The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including November 21, 2014.
Sep 10 2014	Consent from the parties (petitioners, respondents Learjet and Arandell Corp., et al.) to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received.
Sep 18 2014	Joint appendix filed (2 volumes). (Statement of costs filed)
Sep 18 2014	Brief of petitioners ONEOK, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 25 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 25 2014	Brief amici curiae of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, et al. filed.
Sep 25 2014	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Sep 25 2014	Brief amici curiae of Noble Americas Energy Solutions, et al. filed.
Nov 21 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 12, 2015.
Nov 21 2014	Brief of respondents Learjet, Inc., et al. filed.
Nov 21 2014	Brief of Wisconsin respondents filed.
Nov 26 2014	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Nov 26 2014	Brief amici curiae of Kansas, et al. filed.
Nov 26 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed.
Nov 26 2014	Motion of Kansas, et al for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.
Dec 2 2014	CIRCULATED.
Dec 2 2014	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 2 2014	Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, the record is electronic and located on PACER.
Dec 2 2014	Record recived from U.S.D.C. District of Nevada, the record is electroinic and located on PACER.
Dec 15 2014	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Dec 15 2014	Motion of Kansas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Dec 22 2014	Reply of petitioners ONEOK, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 12 2015	Argued. For petitioners: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal.; and Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General, Topeka, Kan. (for Kansas, et al., as amici curiae.)
Apr 21 2015	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part I-A. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined.
May 26 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court rejects issue preclusion in affirming Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right – Gregory Ablavsky

Tom Goldstein and David Savage talk through abortion, precedent and the Supreme Court – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant bankruptcy petition – Amy Howe
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 May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their May 23 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
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

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

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions
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	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

30
Conference