|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-815||8th Cir.||Nov 5, 2013||Dec 10, 2013||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2013|
Holding: Sprint’s lawsuit against members of the Iowa Utilities Board, seeking a declaration that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted a decision by the IUB holding that intrastate fees applied to long-distance Voice over Internet Protocol calls, does not fall within any of the three classes of exceptional cases for which Younger abstention is appropriate; federal court abstention is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on December 10, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 14 2012||Application (12A499) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 3, 2012 to January 17, 2013, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Nov 19 2012||Application (12A499) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 2, 2013.|
|Jan 2 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2013)|
|Jan 2 2013||Appendix of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed.|
|Jan 24 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 6, 2013.|
|Mar 6 2013||Brief of respondents Elizabeth S. Jacobs, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 19 2013||Reply of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed.|
|Mar 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Apr 15 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 30 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 28, 2013.|
|Apr 30 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||Blanket consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents.|
|Jun 28 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jun 28 2013||Brief of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed.|
|Jul 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amicus curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 31 2013||Updated Rule 29.6 disclosure received from counsel for the petitioner. (Distributed)|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2013.|
|Aug 27 2013||Brief of respondents Elizabeth S. Jacobs, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of Michigan and 21 Other States filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 13 2013||Proposal of counsel for respondents to lodge copies of the "Complaint and Request For Emergency Relief" filed with the Iowa Utilities Board.|
|Sep 13 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 8th Circuit. (1 box)|
|Sep 13 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of Iowa is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 26 2013||Reply of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 4 2013||Joint supplemental brief filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 5 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Timothy J. Simeone, Washington, D. C. For respondents: David J. Lynch, Des Moines, Iowa.|
|Dec 10 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 13 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jan 15 2014||Record from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit has been returned.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.
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.