|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.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...