|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-842||2d Cir.||Apr 21, 2014||Jun 16, 2014||7-1||Scalia||OT 2013|
Holding: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not provide a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor with immunity from post-judgment discovery of information concerning its extraterritorial assets.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 16, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 7 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2013)|
|Feb 1 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 11, 2013.|
|Mar 11 2013||Brief of respondent NML Capital, Ltd. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 26 2013||Reply of petitioner Republic of Argentina filed.|
|Mar 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Apr 15 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Nov 22 2013||Supplemental brief of petitioner Republic of Argentina filed.|
|Dec 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 18 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Dec 18 2013||Supplemental brief of respondent NML Capital, Ltd. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 10 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 21, 2014|
|Feb 24 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 24 2014||Brief of petitioner Republic of Argentina filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for respondent.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of United States filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Clearing House filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 21 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A 2nd Circuit is electronic. (Update on 03/31/2014 record received from U.S.C.A 2nd Circuit is also electronic).|
|Mar 21 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 26 2014||Brief of respondent NML Capital, Ltd. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2014||Brief amici curiae of Competitive Enterprise Institute & Former State Department Officials filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Aurelius Entities filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of South Carolina and 20 Other States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Family Members and Estates of Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Montreux Partners, L.P., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Additional Family Members of Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Hispanic American Center for Economic Research filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Manufacturers filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of The Judicial Education Project and Professors of Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Individual Bondholder Judgment Creditors filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors Lester Brickman and The Center for the Rule of Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Judicial Crisis Network filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 14 2014||Reply of petitioner Republic of Argentina filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 18 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 21 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Jonathan I. Blackman, New York, N. Y.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 16 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Sotomayor, J., took no part in the decision of the case.|
|Jul 18 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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...
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.