|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-255||9th Cir.||Apr 26, 2021||Jul 1, 2021||6-3||Roberts||OT 2020|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment, which vacated the district court’s injunction of California’s compelled disclosure of Schedule Bs as not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct, is reversed, and the cases are remanded.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on July 1, 2021. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court's opinion in full, Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined except as to Part II–B–1, and Justice Thomas joined except as to Parts II–B–1 and III–B. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 03 2019||Application (18A1268) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 27, 2019 to August 26, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jun 05 2019||Application (18A1268) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 26, 2019.|
|Aug 26 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 25, 2019)|
|Aug 28 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Thomas More Law Center.|
|Sep 09 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 25, 2019 to October 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Sep 11 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 25, 2019.|
|Sep 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of New Civil Liberties Alliance filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Hispanic Leadership Fund filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Philanthropy Roundtable, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of 24 Family Policy Organizations filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Free Speech Coalition, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Foundation for Michigan Freedom and Texas Public Policy Foundation filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 25, 2019 to November 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 07 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 25, 2019.|
|Nov 25 2019||Brief of respondent Xavier Becerra in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 10 2019||Reply of petitioner Thomas More Law Center filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 21 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.|
|Feb 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.|
|Feb 24 2020||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Nov 24 2020||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 08 2020||Supplemental brief of petitioner Thomas More Law Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 09 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 09 2020||Supplemental brief of respondent Xavier Becerra filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2021||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-251 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jan 08 2021||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. 19-251. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-251. 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.”|
|Mar 12 2021||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 26, 2021. VIDED.|
|Mar 15 2021||Record requested.|
|Mar 15 2021||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Mar 30 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Apr 26 2021||Argued. For petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Aimee A. Feinberg, Deputy Solicitor General, Sacramento, Cal. VIDED.|
|Jul 01 2021||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II– B–1. Kavanaugh and Barrett, JJ., joined that opinion in full, Alito and Gorsuch, JJ., joined except as to Part II–B–1, and Thomas, J., joined except as to Parts II–B–1 and III–B. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined. VIDED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
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...
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.