Ross v. Blake

Editor's Note :

Ross v. Blake

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-339	4th Cir.	Mar 29, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Jun 6, 2016	8-0	Kagan	OT 2015

Holding: The Fourth Circuit's unwritten "special circumstances" exception, which can excuse an inmate's failure to comply with procedural requirements before challenging prison conditions, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 6, 2016. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part.

Opinion analysis: Justices hold door open to prisoner suit even while rejecting “special circumstances” exception to PLRA exhaustion requirement (Steve Vladeck)
Argument analysis: Justices seem likely to DIG or remand prisoner-exhaustion case (Steve Vladeck)
Argument preview: A dispute over what is actually in dispute in state prisoner exhaustion case (Steve Vladeck)
Court to rule on drunk-driving tests (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 14 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 19, 2015)
Sep 23 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Oct 14 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 18, 2015.
Oct 19 2015	Brief amici curiae of West Virginia, and 21 Other States filed.
Nov 2 2015	Brief of respondent Shaidon Blake in opposition filed.
Nov 16 2015	Reply of petitioner Michael Ross filed. (Distributed)
Nov 17 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 11 2015	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 15 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 27, 2016.
Jan 22 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including January 29, 2016.
Jan 22 2016	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 3, 2016.
Jan 29 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Jan 29 2016	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 29 2016	Brief of petitioner Michael Ross filed.
Feb 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Feb 5 2016	Brief amici curiae of West Virginia and 38 Other States filed.
Feb 8 2016	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.
Feb 11 2016	Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Feb 18 2016	Record received from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Maryland Southern Div. is electronic and located on PACER. Sealed records are also electronic, not on PACER.
Feb 23 2016	CIRCULATED.
Mar 1 2016	Proposal of counsel for respondent to lodge bound copies of non-record materials cited in respondent's brief on the merits.
Mar 3 2016	Brief of respondent Shaidon Blake filed. (Distributed)
Mar 7 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of Legal Aid Society of New York and Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2016	Brief amicus curiae of National Police Accountability Project and Human Rights Defense Center filed. (Distributed)
Mar 17 2016	Proposal of counsel for petitioner to lodge copies of non-record materials cited in the reply brief on the merits.
Mar 18 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 21 2016	Reply of petitioner Michael Ross filed. (Distributed).
Mar 23 2016	The Clerk has approved respondent's lodging proposal. Copies of non-record material received and distributed.
Mar 24 2016	The Clerk has approved petitioner's lodging proposal. Copies of cited material received and distributed.
Mar 29 2016	Argued. For petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md.; and Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C.
Jun 6 2016	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part.
Jul 8 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions