|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1406||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether the term “extrajudicial killing” means a summary execution by state actors, as is consistent with international law and the statutory text, context and purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a); (2) whether foreign sovereign immunity may be withdrawn for emotional distress claims brought by family members of victims under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) provides the exclusive remedy for actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a), and forecloses state substantive causes of action previously asserted through the “pass-through” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1606; (4) whether the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(b) is jurisdictional in nature and, if it is not, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should nonetheless have heard Sudan’s limitations defense asserted through its timely, direct appeal; and (5) whether the undisputed fact of civil war, internal strife and partitioning of Sudan into two counties constitutes excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances for vacatur under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CVSG: 05/21/2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 09 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 10, 2018)|
|May 08 2018||Brief of respondents James Owens, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 08 2018||Brief of respondents Monicah Okoba Opati, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/7/2018.|
|May 22 2018||Reply of petitioners The Republic of the Sudan, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 11 2018||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 04 2019||Supplemental brief of petitioners The Republic of the Sudan, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.|
|May 18 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.|
|May 19 2020||Second supplemental brief of petitioners The Republic of the Sudan, et al. filed.|
|May 26 2020||Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
Stephen Breyer wrote major opinions favoring abortion rights, demarcating the separation of powers, and rejecting a challenge to Obamacare. In his later years, he questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty. Our retrospective, via @AHoweBlogger:
Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term - SCOTUSblog
Justice Stephen Breyer, a devoted pragmatist and the senior member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, will r...
BREAKING: Per @PeteWilliamsNBC of @NBCNews, Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring. The 83-year-old Breyer, a pragmatic liberal who has served on the Supreme Court for nearly 28 years, is expected to tell the White House imminently of his intention to step down.
NEWS: Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire, @PeteWilliamsNBC reporting live on @NBCNews Special Report
A rule that allows SCOTUS to hear cases before appeals courts weigh in used to be very rare. But in the past three years, it's become far more common. And the justices haven't said why.
@steve_vladeck explains the resurgent writ of "cert before judgment."
The rise of certiorari before judgment - SCOTUSblog
For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging...
Sonia Sotomayor appeared this morning on @TODAYshow to promote her new children's book, "Just Help!: How to Build a Better World." She spoke briefly about the public's perception of the court. Here's the interview: https://www.today.com/video/justice-sotomayor-on-new-book-supreme-court-s-credibility-loss-of-her-mother-131639365722
Today's big cert grant in a TikTok minute.
In a unanimous ruling, SCOTUS revives a lawsuit against Northwestern University under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Current and former employees argue that the university is violating its fiduciary duties in the administration of its retirement investment plans.