|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-983||3rd Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert – that laws restricting speech on the basis of its function or purpose are facially content-based – overruled and replaced the Supreme Court’s previous test for content neutrality set forth in Hill v. Colorado; (2) whether an Article III court’s use of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to impose a narrowing construction on a content-based regulation of protected speech that is contrary to the law’s plain text and the government’s construction, enforcement and defense conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedents in United States v. Stevens and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union; and (3) whether the Supreme Court’s holding in McCullen v. Coakley – that the government must demonstrate it seriously undertook to address alleged problems with protected speech by less restrictive tools readily available to it – requires that the government show, with a meaningful record, that other less restrictive alternatives were tried and failed or that such alternatives were closely examined and ruled out for good reason, as stated in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 03 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2020)|
|Feb 25 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 6, 2020 to April 6, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 28 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 6, 2020.|
|Apr 06 2020||Waiver of right of respondents City of Harrisburg, Harrisburg City Council, and Eric Papenfuse, in his official capacity as Mayor of Harrisburg to respond filed.|
|Apr 08 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.|
|Apr 17 2020||Response Requested. (Due May 18, 2020)|
|Apr 28 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 18, 2020 to June 17, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 29 2020||Response to motion from petitioner Colleen Reilly, et al. filed.|
|Apr 29 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including May 26, 2020.|
|May 26 2020||Brief of respondents City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.|
|Jun 09 2020||Reply of petitioners Colleen Reilly, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 29 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2020.|
|Jul 02 2020||Petition DENIED.|
NEW: The Justice Department, as expected, says it plans to ask the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
NEW: Biden's commission studying proposals for Supreme Court reform has released 200+ pages of "discussion materials" in advance of its final report, slated to be issued next month. The materials are divided into five categories and are available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/public-meetings/october-15-2021-pcscotus-meeting/
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
Today at SCOTUS: The Biden administration will appear before the justices asking to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- despite Biden's campaign pledge to end the death penalty and the DOJ's recent moratorium on federal executions.
Brett Kavanaugh was back on the bench today after participating in last week's arguments remotely due to his positive COVID test. Here's the full nine-person bench, in a sketch by @Courtartist.
#SCOTUS calls for the views of the US Solicitor General in Epic Systems v. Tata Consultancy Services, re whether a punitive damages award that complies with a state law that caps punitive damages passes constitutional muster