|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether it violates Article II of the Constitution, as well as the First and 14th Amendments, for state courts, on review of a post-election challenge to the specific ballots cast in a presidential election, to invoke the non-statutory, judge-made doctrine of laches to require the counting of ballots that the legislature has expressly directed “may not be counted;” (2) whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated Article II by upholding the counting of 50,125 absentee ballots cast in two counties pursuant to the decisions of election officials to ignore or circumvent state statutes requiring that absentee ballots be delivered only by mail or by hand delivery to the clerk, that photo ID be supplied to obtain an absentee ballot (with limited, inapplicable exceptions), and that absentee-ballot envelopes must contain all statutorily required information and may not be altered once delivered; and (3) whether this court should set aside the election result in Wisconsin, as not produced in the “Manner” directed by the legislature, and hence as “failed” within the meaning of 3 U.S.C. § 2, thus affording the Wisconsin Legislature explicit statutory authority to appoint presidential electors to represent Wisconsin.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 29 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 3, 2021)|
|Dec 29 2020||Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioners.|
|Jan 04 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank not accepted for filing. (Brief rejected and docket corrected January 19, 2021)|
|Jan 11 2021||Motion to expedite consideration filed by petitioners DENIED|
|Jan 15 2021||Waiver of right of respondents Ann S. Jacobs, et al. to respond filed.|
|Jan 19 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank not accepted for filing. (February 17, 2021)|
|Jan 20 2021||Waiver of right of respondents Dane County Clerk and Dane County Board of Canvassers to respond filed.|
|Jan 21 2021||Waiver of right of respondents Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris to respond filed.|
|Jan 25 2021||Waiver of right of respondents Milwaukee County Clerk, Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers to respond filed.|
|Jan 27 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 17 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank not accepted for filing. (February 18, 2021)|
|Feb 18 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank not accepted for filing. (March 10, 2021)|
|Feb 22 2021||Petition DENIED.|
|Mar 15 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank not accepted for filing. (March 25, 2021)|
|Mar 26 2021||Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank submitted.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.