|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-8||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can revive its status under that Act through the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in a trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition; (2) whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress' authority under the Indian commerce clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 3; (3) whether 25 U.S.C. § 5108's standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; and (4) whether the federal government's control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the enclave clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 13 2017||Application (16A982) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 27, 2017 to May 26, 2017, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Apr 17 2017||Application (16A982) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until May 26, 2017.|
|May 10 2017||Application (16A982) to extend further the time from May 26, 2017 to June 26, 2017, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|May 15 2017||Application (16A982) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until June 26, 2017.|
|Jun 23 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 27, 2017)|
|Jul 19 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, The Town of Vernon on 08/10/2017|
|Jul 21 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation filed.|
|Jul 24 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 28, 2017.|
|Aug 28 2017||Brief of respondents United States, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 13 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 03 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 11 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 24 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Nov 13 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2017.|
|Nov 27 2017||Petition DENIED Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denials of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.