|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-193||6th Cir.||Apr 22, 2014||Jun 16, 2014||9-0||Thomas||OT 2013|
Holding: A preenforcement challenge to an Ohio statute that prohibits certain “false statements” during a political campaign is justiciable, and the challengers have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for purposes of Article III, when they have pleaded specific statements that they intend to make in future election cycles that are arguably proscribed by the Ohio law and there is a history of past enforcement of the law insofar as one challenger was the subject of a complaint in a recent election cycle.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 16, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 9 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 12, 2013)|
|Aug 21 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents John Mroczkowski, et al..|
|Sep 6 2013||Waiver of right of respondent Steven Driehaus to respond filed.|
|Sep 11 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Ohio Elections Commission, Charles Calvert, Bryan Felmet, John Mroczkowski, Harvey Shapiro, Jayme Smoot, Degee Wilhelm, Larry Wolpert, Philip Richter, Jon Husted to respond filed.|
|Sep 12 2013||Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, et al. filed.|
|Sep 12 2013||Brief amici curiae of 1851 Center for Consititution Law, et al. filed.|
|Sep 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013.|
|Sep 26 2013||Response Requested . (Due October 28, 2013)|
|Oct 7 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 27, 2013, for all respondents.|
|Nov 13 2013||Letter of November 5, 2013, from counsel for Steven Driehaus received.|
|Nov 27 2013||Brief of State Respondents in opposition filed.|
|Dec 11 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Dec 11 2013||Reply of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 10 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 22, 2014|
|Feb 12 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Feb 12 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Cincinnati is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Feb 19 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Feb 19 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party , received from counsel for the State Respondents.|
|Feb 24 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 24 2014||Brief of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List, et al. filed.|
|Feb 24 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Steven Driehaus, et al.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, et al. filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, and P.J. O'Rourke filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Bioethics Defense Fund filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Booksellers Association, et al. filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine in support of neither party filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Student Press Law Center filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Incividual Rights in Education filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, et al. filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Citizens United, et al. filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of 1851 Center for Consititutional Law filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Republican National Committee filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Government Integrity Fund filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund filed.|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 26 2014||Brief of respondents State Respondents filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Reply of petitioners Susan B. Anthony List, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 18 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For the United States, as amicus curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, Columbus, Ohio.|
|Jun 16 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 18 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.