|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20A136||9th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily suspend regulations by San Diego County and California Gov. Gavin Newsom that restrict attendance at houses of worship while allowing some secular business to remain open during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of the court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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 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|
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.