|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether California Governor Gavin Newsom’s lockdown orders and reopening restrictions under the “Blueprint” framework, placing strict limitations, including closures, on all places of worship in California, violates South Bay’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion; and (2) whether strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for challenges to state and county restrictions upon free-exercise-of-religion rights during a pandemic, or whether Jacobson v. Massachusetts imposes extra limitations to the Supreme Court’s established line of free-exercise jurisprudence during a pandemic.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 24 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 30, 2020)|
|Dec 24 2020||Waiver of right of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 30 2020||Waiver of right of respondents William D. Gore, Helen Robbins-Meyer, Dr. Wilma J. Wooten to respond filed.|
|Jan 06 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.|
|Jan 14 2021||Response Requested. (Due February 16, 2021)|
|Jan 19 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 16, 2021 to March 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 20 2021||Response to motion from petitioner South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.|
|Jan 22 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 18, 2021.|
|Jan 25 2021||Application (20A136) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jan 26 2021||Response to application (20A136) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, January 29, by 5 p.m. ET.|
|Jan 26 2021||Letter Re: Notice of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Ruling of South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. submitted.|
|Jan 27 2021||Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al.|
|Jan 29 2021||Response to application from respondents Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. filed.|
|Jan 29 2021||Response to application from respondents Wilma J. Wooten, et al. filed.|
|Jan 29 2021||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.|
|Jan 30 2021||Letter of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.|
|Jan 30 2021||Reply of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.|
|Feb 05 2021||Application (20A136) referred to the Court.|
|Feb 05 2021||The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted in part. Respondents are enjoined from enforcing the Blueprint’s Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship services against the applicants pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. The application is denied with respect to the percentage capacity limitations, and respondents are not en-joined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in Tier 1. The application is denied with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services. This order is without prejudice to the applicants presenting new evidence to the District Court that the State is not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH would grant the application in full. JUSTICE ALITO would grant the application with respect to all of the capacity restrictions on indoor worship services and the prohibition against indoor singing and chanting, and would stay for 30 days an injunction against the percentage attendance caps and the prohibition against indoor singing and chanting. (See Detached Opinion). CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion). Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom|
Opinions Monday! 🗓
#SCOTUS will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning at 9:30 am, followed by opinion(s) in argued cases at 10 am, according to the Court's website.
NEW: After a request from the Biden administration yesterday, the Supreme Court just dismissed three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) about the Trump administration’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities.
🚨 LIVE NOW 🚨 5PM on IGTV #SimplePolitics join me & @AHoweBlogger editor / reporter for the @SCOTUSblog for a great conversation on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court. There is so much to talk about.
SimplePolitics with Kim Wehle - Special Guest Bill Kristol, Editor-At-Large, The Bulwark
Tonight on #SimplePolitics, Bill Kristol and I have an in-depth conversation about Impeachment, what‘s next for ...
ICYMI: We got Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first majority opinion today.
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
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.