|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-739||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is owed to an interpretation of language prohibiting billboards that display “flashing,” “intermittent” or “moving” lights, contained in agreements between the Federal Highway Administration and individual states, as announced in a guidance memorandum issued by the FHWA on September 25, 2007, or whether deference, if any, is owed under Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; and (2) whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which invoked Chevron and approved the FHWA's interpretation, conflicts with Chevron itself.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 05 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 6, 2017)|
|Jan 04 2017||Waiver of right of respondents Department of Transportation; Anthony Fox, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; Gregory G. Nadeau, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of Federal Highway Administration; and Federal Highway Administration to respond filed.|
|Jan 05 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Jan 11 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Jan 30 2017||Response Requested. (Due March 1, 2017)|
|Feb 23 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 31, 2017, for all respondents.|
|Mar 28 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 1, 2017, for all respondents.|
|May 01 2017||Brief of respondent Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|May 01 2017||Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed.|
|May 16 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.|
|May 30 2017||Reply Requested. (Due June 13, 2017)|
|Jun 09 2017||Reply of petitioner Scenic America, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 14 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Oct 02 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 16 2017||Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Gorsuch, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Alito join, respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion).|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...