|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-331||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate because, contrary to the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 4th Circuit, the district court’s denial of the president’s motion to dismiss was clear and indisputable legal error; and (2) whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate, contrary to the holding of the 4th Circuit, when the district court’s refusal to grant the president’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal was a clear abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 09 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 14, 2020)|
|Oct 06 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 14, 2020 to November 28, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 07 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2020. See Rule 30.1.|
|Oct 14 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project.|
|Nov 18 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 30, 2020 to December 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 19 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including December 14, 2020.|
|Dec 08 2020||Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5. filed.|
|Dec 14 2020||Brief of respondents District of Columbia and the State of Maryland in opposition filed.|
|Dec 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 23 2020||Reply of petitioner In Re Donald J.Trump filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 19 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.|
|Jan 25 2021||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, et al. GRANTED.|
|Jan 25 2021||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).|
|Feb 26 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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...
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
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.