|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-406||7th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Issues: (1) Whether a member of the Legislative Branch may immediately appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment on the ground that it violates the separation of powers protected by the Constitution’s rulemaking clause; (2) whether such a claim is immediately appealable by virtue of the collateral order doctrine where it invokes a claim of non-justiciability and separation of powers immunity and as a result cannot be redressed after a trial; (3) whether there is a pendant appellate jurisdiction doctrine to hear such a claim because of its relationship with an immediately appealable speech or debate clause claim, or whether that doctrine is categorically unavailable in criminal cases; and (4) whether the speech and debate clause provides a legislator with immunity from criminal charges that are founded in part on the content of internal House of Representatives communications concerning the interpretation, application or administration of Rules of the Proceedings.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 17 2018||Application (18A194) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 28, 2018 to September 27, 2018, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Aug 21 2018||Application (18A194) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 27, 2018.|
|Sep 27 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 31, 2018)|
|Oct 24 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 31, 2018 to November 30, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 25 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2018.|
|Oct 30 2018||Brief amici curiae of Former General Counsels of the U.S. House of Representatives filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 30, 2018 to December 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 14 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 5, 2018.|
|Dec 04 2018||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Dec 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Dec 20 2018||Reply of petitioner Aaron J. Schock filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.