|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-921||P.R.||Not Argued||Feb 24, 2020||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2019|
Holding: A Puerto Rico trial court had no jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after a pension benefits proceeding was removed to federal district court but before the proceeding was remanded back to the Puerto Rico court; thus the orders are void.
Judgment: Granted, vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on February 24, 2020. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 15 2018||Application (17A1375) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Jun 15 2018||Response to application (17A1375) requested by Justice Breyer, due Wednesday, June 20, 2018, by 3 p.m. ET.|
|Jun 19 2018||Response to application from respondent Yalí Acevedo Feliciano, et al. filed.|
|Jun 20 2018||Response in support of the application from respondent Catholic Employees Pension Trust filed.|
|Jun 21 2018||Reply of applicant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico, et al. filed.|
|Jun 21 2018||Application (17A1375) denied by Justice Breyer.|
|Jun 22 2018||Application (17A1375) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Jun 22 2018||Application (17A1375) denied by Justice Alito.|
|Nov 02 2018||Application (18A483) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 15, 2018 to December 15, 2018, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Nov 06 2018||Application (18A483) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until December 15, 2018.|
|Dec 06 2018||Application (18A483) to extend further the time from December 15, 2018 to January 14, 2019, submitted to Justice Breyer.|
|Dec 07 2018||Application (18A483) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until January 14, 2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 15, 2019)|
|Jan 28 2019||Suggestion of bankruptcy of petitioner received from counsel for respondents Yali, Acevedo Feliciano, et al. received.|
|Feb 01 2019||Brief of respondents Yalí Acevedo Feliciano, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 06 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico, et al.|
|Feb 07 2019||Letter of February 5, 2019 received from counsel for Academia del Perpetuo Socorro and Academia San Jose.|
|Feb 15 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.|
|Feb 15 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief of respondents Academia del Perpetuo Socorro; Academia San Jose in support filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief of respondent Catholic Employees Pension Trust in support filed.|
|Mar 06 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.|
|Mar 06 2019||Reply of petitioners Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2019||Letter of March 20, 2019 with additional authority from counsel for petitioners received. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2019||Letter of March 20, 2019 from counsel for respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Mar 21 2019||Letter of March 21, 2019 from counsel for respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.|
|Apr 08 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.|
|Apr 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.|
|Apr 22 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.|
|May 06 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.|
|May 13 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.|
|May 20 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.|
|Jun 03 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.|
|Jun 06 2019||Letter of May 29, 2019 from counsel for respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Jun 10 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 24 2019||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 20 2019||Supplemental brief of respondents Yalí Acevedo Feliciano, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Dec 23 2019||Supplemental brief of petitioners Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 09 2020||Letter of January 3, 2020 from counsel for Respondent Schools received. (Distributed)|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 21 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.|
|Feb 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.|
|Feb 24 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention GRANTED.|
|Feb 24 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops GRANTED.|
|Feb 24 2020||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring. (Detached opinion)|
|Mar 27 2020||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 27 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.