|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: Whether a court can pivot liability for a priest's failure to report certain communications to public authorities on the court's own determination of whether those communications constitute “confession per se,” or whether it must respect the church's own view that such communications are confessional and absolutely protected from disclosure by the priest on penalty of automatic excommunication.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 31 2014||Application (14A145) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 21, 2014 to September 30, 2014, submitted to Justice Scalia.|
|Aug 20 2014||Application (14A145) denied by Justice Scalia.|
|Aug 21 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 25, 2014)|
|Sep 12 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Sep 24 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 27, 2014, for all respondents.|
|Sep 24 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.|
|Sep 24 2014||Brief amici curiae of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, et al. filed.|
|Sep 25 2014||Brief amici curiae of Belmont Abbey College, et al. filed.|
|Sep 25 2014||Brief amici curiae of The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, et al. filed.|
|Sep 25 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Roman Catholic Bishops of the (Arch) Dioceses of Louisiana filed.|
|Oct 27 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 26, 2014.|
|Nov 26 2014||Brief of respondents Robert D. Mayeux and Lisa M. Mayeux in opposition filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Reply of petitioners Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jan 7 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Jan 12 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.|
|Jan 20 2015||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy GRANTED.|
|Jan 20 2015||Petition DENIED.|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...