Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

Editor's Note :

Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm

Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action – Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

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

Mar. 2019

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 March 15, 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

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm

Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action – Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm
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 will release orders from the March 15 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that likely were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 48

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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	48
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference