|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 JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. (Detached|
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
Tomorrow morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of voting rights cases involving Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits policies or laws that result in racial discrimination in voting.
Missed the morning orders? @AHoweBlogger's got you covered. Read about the new grants including a review of Puerto Rico’s eligibility for a federal benefits program. Plus, she's got an overview of several high-profile petitions still under consideration.
Court will review Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal benefits program - SCOTUSblog
The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justic...
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
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.