|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-990||4th Cir.||Nov 4, 2015||Dec 8, 2015||9-0||Scalia||OT 2015|
Holding: 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which requires that a “district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts,” and further provides that “the judge [presented with a request for a three-judge court] shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges to serve,” entitles a group of Maryland residents to make their claim that the state’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan burdens their First Amendment right of political association before a three-judge court.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on December 8, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 10 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2015)|
|Mar 4 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 20, 2015.|
|Mar 20 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc filed.|
|Apr 20 2015||Brief of respondents Bobbie S. Mack, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 1 2015||Reply of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, O. John Beniser, and Maria B. Pycha filed.|
|May 5 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 21, 2015.|
|May 26 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 28, 2015.|
|Jun 1 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 4, 2015.|
|Jun 8 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 11 2015||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Stephen M. Shapiro, et al.|
|Jun 22 2015||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jun 22 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 7, 2015.|
|Jun 22 2015||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2015.|
|Jul 6 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Aug 5 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Aug 7 2015||Brief of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. filed.|
|Aug 13 2015||Brief amici curiae of Common Cause and The Campaign Legal Center, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 14 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Virginia State Conference of the NAACP filed.|
|Aug 14 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc filed.|
|Aug 14 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors Joshua A. Douglas and Michael E. Solimine, Election Law Scholars filed.|
|Sep 9 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 4, 2015|
|Sep 10 2015||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Sep 18 2015||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 25, 2015.|
|Sep 25 2015||Brief of respondents David J. McManus, Jr., Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. filed.|
|Oct 2 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 26 2015||Reply of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2015||Argued. For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Steven M. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md.|
|Dec 8 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 11 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.