|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1460||5th Cir.||Mar 4, 2020||Jun 29, 2020||5-4||Breyer||OT 2019|
Holding: Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 29, 2020. Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the court and delivered an opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas joined except as to Parts III–C and IV–F and Justice Kavanaugh joined as to Parts I, II and III. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 20 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 24, 2019)|
|Jun 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 24, 2019 to August 23, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 23, 2019.|
|Jun 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Senator Josh Hawley filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Life filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Amicus brief of 2,556 Operation Outcry Women Hurt By Abortion and The Justice Foundation not accepted for filing. (June 24, 2019 -- Corrected version to be submitted)|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Indiana, et al. filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Amicus brief of American Center for Law and Justice not accepted for filing. (June 27, 2019)(Corrected version submitted)|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amici curiae of 2,556 Operation Outcry Women Hurt By Abortion and The Justice Foundation filed.|
|Aug 23 2019||Brief of respondents June Medical Services L.L.C., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 09 2019||Reply of petitioner Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals filed.|
|Sep 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Oct 04 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-1323 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Oct 04 2019||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 18-1323. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-1323. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 4, 2020. VIDED.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Jan 10 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 04 2020||Argued. For June Medical Services L.L.C., et al.: Julie Rikelman, New York, N. Y. For Stephen Russo, Interim Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals: Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La.; and Jeffrey B. Wall, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED.|
|Jun 29 2020||Judgment REVERSED. Breyer, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined except as to Parts III–C and IV–F, and in which Kavanaugh, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Gorsuch, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed dissenting opinions. VIDED.|
|Jul 31 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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!
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.