|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1019||5th Cir.||Nov 10, 2020||Jun 17, 2021||7-2||Breyer||OT 2020|
Holding: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 17, 2021. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 14 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2020)|
|Feb 18 2020||Letter of February 18, 2020 from counsel for respondent U.S. House of Representatives filed.|
|Feb 19 2020||Letter of February 19, 2020 from counsel for respondent State of California filed.|
|Feb 24 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.|
|Mar 02 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-840 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Mar 02 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-840. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-840. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Aug 19 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 10, 2020. VIDED.|
|Aug 31 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Sep 02 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 10 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Nov 10 2020||Argued. For California, et al.: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal. For U.S. House of Representatives: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Washington, D. C. For Texas, et al.: Kyle D. Hawkins, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. For United States, et al.: Jeffrey B. Wall, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 17 2021||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. VIDED.|
|Jul 19 2021||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.