|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-389||9th Cir.||Apr 16, 2019||Jun 10, 2019||9-0||Thomas||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.
Holding: Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 28 2018||Application (18A20) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 26, 2018 to August 27, 2018, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Jul 05 2018||Application (18A20) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until August 27, 2018.|
|Aug 07 2018||Application (18A20) to extend further the time from August 27, 2018 to September 24, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Aug 08 2018||Application (18A20) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 24, 2018.|
|Sep 24 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 26, 2018)|
|Oct 10 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd.|
|Oct 17 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 26, 2018 to November 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 19 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 26, 2018.|
|Oct 26 2018||Brief amici curiae of Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas et al. filed.|
|Oct 26 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 26 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Nov 26 2018||Brief of respondent Brian Newton in opposition filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Reply of petitioner Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. filed.|
|Dec 12 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 22 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Brian Newton|
|Jan 23 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd..|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 16, 2019|
|Feb 20 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)|
|Feb 20 2019||Brief of petitioner Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. filed.|
|Feb 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Feb 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Feb 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC, et al. filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Mar 22 2019||Brief of respondent Brian Newton filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 27 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 29 2019||Brief amicus curiae of California Applicants' Attorneys Association ("CAAA") filed.|
|Apr 09 2019||Reply of petitioner Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 16 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 10 2019||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 12 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.