Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Editor's Note :

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 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

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 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 June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-135	3d Cir.	Mar 25, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Jun 10, 2013	9-0	Kagan	OT 2012

Holding: When an arbitrator determines that the parties to an arbitration intended to authorize class-wide arbitration, that determination survives judicial review under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act as long as the arbitrator was arguably construing the contract.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 10, 2013. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joined.

Opinion analysis: Tentatively reopening the (back) door to class arbitration (Steve Vladeck)
Details: Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter (Tom Goldstein)
Argument recap: How much deference do arbitrators deserve under Stolt-Nielsen? (Steve Vladeck)
Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 27 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2012)
Aug 1 2012	Waiver of right of respondent John Ivan Sutter to respond filed.
Aug 15 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Aug 21 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Aug 29 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar.
Sep 6 2012	Response Requested . (Due October 9, 2012)
Oct 1 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 8, 2012.
Nov 6 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 15, 2012.
Nov 15 2012	Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter in opposition filed.
Nov 20 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Nov 20 2012	Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)
Dec 7 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America GRANTED.
Dec 7 2012	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar GRANTED.
Dec 7 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 7 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 25, 2013
Jan 8 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Jan 9 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 22 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 22 2013	Brief of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed.
Jan 22 2013	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit is electronic.
Jan 22 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of New Jersey is electronic.
Jan 23 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Jan 28 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jan 28 2013	Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2013	Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 18 2013	Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)
Mar 25 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric D. Katz, Roseland, N. J.
Jun 10 2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.
Jul 12 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
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
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
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
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at 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	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions