|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-399||D.C. Cir.||Apr 17, 2017||Jun 23, 2017||7-2||Ginsburg||OT 2016|
Holding: The proper review forum when the Merit Systems Protection Board dismisses a mixed case -- a complaint by an employee of a serious adverse employment action attributable, in whole or in part, to bias based on race, gender, age or disability -- on jurisdictional grounds is district court.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 23, 2017. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 27 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 27, 2016)|
|Oct 21 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 28, 2016.|
|Nov 14 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 5, 2016.|
|Dec 05 2016||Brief of respondent Merit Systems Protection Board in opposition filed.|
|Dec 20 2016||Reply of petitioner Anthony W. Perry filed.|
|Dec 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 13 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 14 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 17, 2017.|
|Feb 22 2017||Record requested from U.S.C.A. for the D.C. Circuit.|
|Feb 27 2017||Record received from U.S.C.A. for the D.C. Circuit. The record is electronic.|
|Feb 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of petitioner Anthony W. Perry filed.|
|Mar 03 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association (MWELA) filed.|
|Mar 17 2017||Record received from the Merit Systems Protection Board (1 box).|
|Mar 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 29 2017||Brief of respondent Merit Systems Protection Board filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 10 2017||Reply of petitioner Anthony W. Perry filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 17 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Christopher Landau, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 23 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Aug 07 2017||Record from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has been returned.|
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.