|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-926||1st Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether an ERISA plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “losses to the plan result[ed] from” a fiduciary breach, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether ERISA defendants bear the burden of disproving loss causation, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit concluded, joining the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th and 8th Circuits; and (2) whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit concluded, showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds, selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish “losses to the plan.” CVSG: 11/27/2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 11 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 15, 2019)|
|Jan 24 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 15, 2019 to March 15, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 28 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 15, 2019.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Investment Company Institute filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The American Council of Life Insurers filed.|
|Mar 14 2019||Brief of respondents John Brotherston, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 01 2019||Reply of petitioners Putnam Investments, LLC, et al. filed.|
|Apr 02 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.|
|Apr 22 2019||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Nov 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 10 2019||Supplemental brief of petitioners Putnam Investments, LLC, et al. filed.|
|Dec 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Jan 13 2020||Petition DENIED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...