|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1041||D.C. Cir.||Dec 1, 2014||Mar 9, 2015||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2014|
Holding: The D.C. Circuit’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which requires agencies to use the notice-and-comment process before it can significantly revise an interpretive rule, is contrary to the clear text of the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking provisions and improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the Act’s maximum procedural requirements.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on March 9, 2015. Justice Alito joined except for Part III–B, and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 18 2013||Application (13A636) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 31, 2013 to January 30, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 19 2013||Application (13A636) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 30, 2014.|
|Jan 17 2014||Application (13A636) to extend further the time from January 30, 2014 to February 28, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jan 21 2014||Application (13A636) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until February 28, 2014.|
|Feb 18 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent. VIDED.|
|Feb 28 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 2, 2014)|
|Mar 24 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 2, 2014.|
|Mar 26 2014||Brief amici curiae of Administrative Law Scholars filed. VIDED.|
|May 2 2014||Brief of respondent Mortgage Bankers Association in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|May 20 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 5, 2014.|
|May 21 2014||Reply of petitioner Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 9 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.|
|Jun 16 2014||Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 13-1052 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Jun 26 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor.|
|Jul 7 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including August 13, 2014. VIDED|
|Jul 7 2014||The time to file respondents' brief(s) on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2014. VIDED|
|Jul 21 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Aug 11 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's briefs on the merits is further extended to and including August 20, 2014. VIDED|
|Aug 11 2014||The time to file respondents' brief(s) on the merits is further extended to and including October 9, 2014. VIDED|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief of petitioners Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief of petitioners in No. 13-1052, Jerome Nickols, et al. filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 1, 2014. VIDED|
|Sep 9 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the respondents. VIDED|
|Sep 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. Dist. of Columbia Circuit.|
|Sep 26 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Columbia Circuit. The record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 9 2014||Brief of respondents Mortgage Bankers Association, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Mining Association filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Hospital Association, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Utility Air Regulatory Group and American Forest & Paper Association filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Quicken Loans Inc. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Motion for divided argument filed by petitioners Jerome Nickols, et al. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of State and Local Government Associations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 27 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Oct 28 2014||Opposition of petitioners Perez, et al. to motion of Nickols, et al. for divided argument filed. VIDED|
|Nov 10 2014||Motion for divided argument filed by petitioners Jerome Nickols, et al. DENIED.|
|Nov 10 2014||Reply of petitioners Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Nov 10 2014||Reply of petitioners in No. 13-1052, Jerome Nickols, et al., filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 1 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, Tex.|
|Mar 9 2015||Judgment REVERSED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined except for Part III-B. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment. VIDED|
|Apr 10 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.