|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-165||7th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether it is consistent with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes to hold that a defendant to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action has no right to raise statutory afﬁrmative defenses on an individual basis if the classseeks “only” monetary relief; and (2) whether a district court can conclude that the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement is satisﬁed when a class claims the denial of overtime pay, without resolving whether dissimilarities in the class would preclude it from establishing liability on a class-wide basis.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 20 2012||Application (11A1222) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 2, 2012 to August 1, 2012, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jun 21 2012||Application (11A1222) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 1, 2012.|
|Aug 1 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 3, 2012)|
|Aug 7 2012||Waiver of right of respondents Synthia G. Ross, et al. to respond filed.|
|Aug 15 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 22 2012||Response Requested . (Due September 21, 2012)|
|Sep 21 2012||Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 21 2012||Brief of respondents Synthia G. Ross, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 1 2012||Reply of petitioners RBS Citizens, N.A., dba Charter One, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 3 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Mar 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Apr 1 2013||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___ (2013).|
|May 3 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
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.