|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-307||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Issues: (1) Whether Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by creating the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection as an independent agency that exercises expansive executive authority over private citizens but is led by a single director that the president cannot remove from office for policy reasons, is exempted from Congress’ power of the purse and accompanying congressional oversight, and has no internal checks or balances (such as those afforded by a deliberate multi-member commission structure) to mitigate this lack of accountability and restraint; (2) whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overturned; and (3) whether the appropriations clause, in conjunction with the Constitution’s separation of powers, permits Congress to create perpetual, on-demand funding streams for executive agencies that are unreviewably drawn from the coffers of other independent agencies.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 06 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 10, 2018)|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Oct 10 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 10 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 10 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 10, 2018 to November 11, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 11 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including November 9, 2018.|
|Nov 08 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 9, 2018 to December 10, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 09 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 10, 2018.|
|Dec 10 2018||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||Reply of petitioners State National Bank of Big Spring, et al. filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
#SCOTUS issues order on divided argument in next week's Texas abortion cases, allows Texas to file one consolidated (but oversized) brief for both cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102621zr_o7jp.pdf
Happening now outside SCOTUS: Several dozens supporters of expanding the size of the court are holding a rally. Speakers include Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tina Smith, and Rep. Mondaire Jones.
On Friday, the Supreme Court moved the Texas abortion litigation off the shadow docket and onto the "rocket docket." @maryrziegler explains how the expedited schedule is an important shift from how the court initially handled the issue in early September.
Supreme speed: The court puts abortion on the rocket docket - SCOTUSblog
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: ...
The court has adjusted its November argument schedule to reflect the accelerated consideration of the Texas abortion law.
#SCOTUS issues new oral argument calendar for November in light of today's orders scheduling Texas abortion cases for Nov. 1. Ramirez v. Collier, originally scheduled for Nov. 1, is now set for Nov. 9; Shinn v. Ramirez, originally set for Nov. 1, will be argued in December.
We've got two ways to catch up on what the Supreme Court did today on the Texas anti-abortion law.
For prose lovers, here's @AHoweBlogger's story: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/court-wont-block-texas-abortion-ban-but-fast-tracks-cases-for-argument-on-nov-1/
For the more video-inclined, here's @katieleebarlow's TikTok explainer:
When it hears argument on Nov. 1, the court will not directly consider the substance of the Texas abortion law. Here are the questions presented. The first concerns Texas' unusual private-enforcement scheme; the second concerns whether DOJ has the right to sue to block the law.
BREAKING: SCOTUS fast-tracks both lawsuits challenging the Texas anti-abortion law and schedules oral argument just 10 days from now. Sotomayor writes a partial dissent castigating the court for once again leaving the law in place in the meantime.