|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: (1) Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in declaring the Oklahoma Ultrasound Act, which requires the performance, display, and explanation of a pre-abortion ultrasound, to be facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in light of this Court’s ruling that informational requirements further "the State’s legitimate interest of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed;" (2) whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in interpreting Casey as prohibiting informed consent laws requiring the performance, display and explanation of pre-abortion ultrasounds – an interpretation that directly conflicts with that of the Fifth Circuit in Texas Medical Providers Providing Abortion Services v. Lakey and the interpretation of Casey in the Eighth Circuit’s recent decisions reviewing other informed consent requirements; and (3) whether Casey requires state courts to presume all state regulations of abortion are unconstitutional under federal law, absent controlling authority from this Court.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 22 2013||Application (12A832) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 4, 2013 to March 25, 2013, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Feb 25 2013||Application (12A832) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until March 25, 2013.|
|Mar 22 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 25, 2013)|
|Apr 22 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Nova Health Systems, et al. to respond filed.|
|Apr 30 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 2 2013||Response Requested . (Due June 3, 2013)|
|Jun 3 2013||Brief of respondents Nova Health Systems, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Nov 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 8, 2013.|
|Nov 12 2013||Petition DENIED.|
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.
Cecilia (Cissy) Suyat Marshall, the widow of Thurgood Marshall, died this morning at 94. Here is the court's announcement.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court REJECTS Trump's bid to prevent the House Ways & Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. No noted dissents.
The brief order may end years of litigation over the committee's efforts to review the tax records of Trump and his businesses.
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zr_e1p3.pdf
In a quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS adds no new cases to its docket. The court will not hear Brooks v. Abbott, a challenge to an alleged racial gerrymander of a state senate district in Texas. Here's the full order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zor_7lhn.pdf