Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

Editor's Note :

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-605	2d Cir.	Apr 17, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Jun 5, 2017	9-0	Alito	OT 2016

Holding: (1) A litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff; and (2) the court of appeals is to address on remand the question whether Laroe Estates seeks different relief than Steven Sherman: If Laroe wants only a money judgment of its own running directly against the town of Chester, then it seeks damages different from those sought by Sherman and must establish its own Article III standing in order to intervene.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 5, 2017.

Opinion analysis: Standing, intervention and a narrow disposition (Howard M. Wasserman)
Argument analysis: Intervention, standing and control over litigation (Howard M. Wasserman)
Argument preview: Standing for intervention (Howard M. Wasserman)
Court adds 16 new cases to its merits docket (Expanded) (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 22 2016	Application (16A303) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 4, 2016 to November 3, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Sep 23 2016	Application (16A303) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until November 3, 2016.
Nov 3 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 5, 2016)
Nov 17 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Nov 22 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 7, 2016.
Dec 2 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association filed.
Dec 5 2016	Brief of respondent Laroe Estates, Inc. in opposition filed.
Dec 20 2016	Reply of petitioner Town of Chester, New York filed.
Dec 21 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.
Jan 9 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.
Jan 13 2017	Petition GRANTED.
Feb 7 2017	Motion to be added as a respondent and for leave to participate in oral argument filed by Nancy Sherman, Executrix.
Feb 15 2017	Response to motion of Nancy Sherman, Executrix from counsel for respondent.
Feb 16 2017	Response to motion of Nancy Sherman, Executrix from counsel for petitioner.
Feb 17 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 17, 2017
Feb 17 2017	Reply of Nancy Sherman, Executrix.
Feb 22 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Feb 24 2017	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Feb 24 2017	Brief of petitioner Town of Chester, New York filed.
Feb 27 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit. The record is electronic.
Feb 28 2017	Motion to be added as a respondent and for leave to participate in oral argument DENIED.
Mar 3 2017	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Mar 3 2017	Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed.
Mar 3 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Aaron- Andrew P. Bruhl filed.
Mar 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Nancy Sherman, Executrix in support of neither party filed.
Mar 9 2017	Motion for reconsideration of motion to be added as a respondent and for leave to participate in oral argument filed by Nancy Sherman, Executrix.
Mar 10 2017	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 22 2017	CIRCULATED.
Mar 27 2017	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 27 2017	Motion of Nancy Sherman, Executrix, for reconsideration of motion to be added as a respondent and for leave to participate in oral argument DENIED.
Mar 27 2017	Brief of respondent Laroe Estates, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2017	Brief amici curiae of National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2017	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center, and Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2017	Brief amici curiae of American Forest Resource Council, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 10 2017	Reply of petitioner Town of Chester, New York filed. (Distributed)
Apr 17 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.; and Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.
Jun 5 2017	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jul 7 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73