|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-975||11th Cir.||Nov 10, 2014||Jan 14, 2015||6-3||Sotomayor||OT 2014|
Holding: 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), which provides that a locality’s denial of an application to build a cell phone tower “shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record,” requires localities to provide the reasons for such denials in writing. However, those reasons do not have to appear in the written denial letter as long as they appear in some other written record, are sufficiently clear, and are provided or made accessible to the applicant essentially contemporaneously with the written denial notice.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 14, 2015. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part I. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 13 2013||Application (13A614) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 30, 2013 to February 13, 2014, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Dec 20 2013||Application (13A614) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until February 13, 2014.|
|Feb 12 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2014)|
|Mar 19 2014||Brief of respondent City of Roswell, Georgia in opposition filed.|
|Mar 20 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Competitive Carriers Association.|
|Mar 28 2014||Reply of petitioner T-Mobile South, LLC filed.|
|Apr 2 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.|
|Apr 28 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014.|
|May 5 2014||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Competitive Carriers Association GRANTED.|
|May 5 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 3 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 3, 2014.|
|Jun 3 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 18, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 3 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 3 2014||Brief of petitioner T-Mobile South, LLC filed.|
|Jul 3 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Competitive Carriers Association filed.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Federation of Independent Business filed.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of PCIA -The Wireless Infrastructure Association filed.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association filed.|
|Jul 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of TowerCom V, LLC filed.|
|Aug 18 2014||Brief of respondent City of Roswell, Georgia filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 10, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 9 2014||Record received form U.S.D.C. Northern District of Georgia is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 17 2014||Reply of petitioner T-Mobile South, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 2 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 8 2014||Supplemental brief of respondent City of Roswell, Georgia filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 10 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Ca. For United States, as amicus curiae: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Richard A. Carothers, Buford, Ga.|
|Jan 14 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Ginsburg, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Part I. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Feb 18 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.