|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1705||4th Cir.||Mar 25, 2019||Jun 20, 2019||9-0||Breyer||OT 2018|
Holding: The extent to which a 2006 Federal Communications Commission order interpreting the term “unsolicited advertisement” binds lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary questions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit should address in the first instance: (1) whether the order is the equivalent of a legislative rule, which has the force and effect of law, or an interpretative rule, which does not; and (2) whether PDR Network, LLC had a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the order.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 20, 2019. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 21 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2018)|
|Jul 11 2018||Waiver of right of respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Jul 18 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Aug 01 2018||Response Requested. (Due August 31, 2018)|
|Aug 29 2018||Brief of respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 11 2018||Reply of petitioners PDR Network, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 12 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.|
|Oct 09 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.|
|Oct 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.|
|Nov 05 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.|
|Nov 27 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits filed.|
|Nov 28 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including January 8, 2019.|
|Jan 08 2019||Brief of petitioners PDR Network, LLC, et al. filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners PDR Network, LLC, et al.|
|Jan 15 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai filed.|
|Jan 15 2019||Brief amici curiae of State and Local Government Associations filed.|
|Jan 15 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed.|
|Jan 15 2019||Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 22 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.|
|Jan 25 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 25, 2019|
|Feb 07 2019||Brief of respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. filed.|
|Feb 14 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 14 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Bankers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Corrected Certificate of Compliance from the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed. (2/19/2019)|
|Feb 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Mar 04 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 11 2019||Reply of petitioners PDR Network, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Glenn L. Hara, Rolling Meadows, Ill.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 20 2019||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 22 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.