|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-502||9th Cir.||Jan 12, 2015||Jun 18, 2015||9-0||Thomas||OT 2014|
Holding: The provisions of a municipality’s sign code that impose more stringent restrictions on signs directing the public to the meeting of a non-profit group than on signs conveying other messages are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 18, 2015. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 21 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2013)|
|Oct 31 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 19 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Professors Ashutosh Bhagwat, et al.|
|Nov 26 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.|
|Nov 26 2013||Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)|
|Dec 14 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 24, 2014.|
|Feb 19 2014||Brief of respondents Town of Gilbert, Arizona, and Adam Adams in opposition filed.|
|Mar 5 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 21, 2014.|
|Mar 5 2014||Reply of petitioners Clyde Reed, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Professors Ashutosh Bhagwat, et al. GRANTED.|
|Jul 1 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 9 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jul 18 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 15, 2014.|
|Aug 1 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 31, 2014.|
|Sep 2 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including November 14, 2014.|
|Sep 15 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Sep 15 2014||Brief of petitioners Clyde Reed, et al. filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of Robert Wilson, et al. filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, et al. filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of Liberty Counsel and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Council filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Christian Life Commission of the Missouri Baptist Convention filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The American Center for Law and Justice filed.|
|Oct 9 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Nov 14 2014||Brief of respondents Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Nov 21 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 12, 2015.|
|Nov 21 2014||Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al., filed.|
|Dec 2 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 2 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Dec 2 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, the record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Dec 2 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Arizona, the record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Dec 15 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Dec 15 2014||Reply of petitioners Clyde Reed, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2015||Argued. For petitioners: David A. Cortman, Lawrenceville, Ga. For United States as amicus curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Philip W. Savrin, Atlanta, Ga.|
|Mar 3 2015||Letter from counsel for the petitioners filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 18 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Kagan, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 20 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.