Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Editor's Note :

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 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

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
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 February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices met for their February 22 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this 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
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

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
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

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	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)
Opinions

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)
Opinions