|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-676||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Issue: Whether the district court erred in preliminarily enjoining the military from implementing nationwide the 2018 policy of Secretary of Defense James Mattis under which transgender individuals would be permitted to serve in the military, while individuals with a history of a medical condition called gender dysphoria would be disqualified from military service unless they meet certain conditions.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 23 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 24, 2018)|
|Dec 13 2018||Response to application (18A625) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, December 28, 2018, by noon ET.|
|Dec 13 2018||Application (18A625) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Dec 19 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed.VIDED|
|Dec 21 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation for Moral Law. (Distributed)|
|Dec 24 2018||Brief of Egeler, Anne Elizabeth State of Washington in opposition filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Dec 26 2018||Brief of respondents Ryan Karnoski, et al. in opposition filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2018||Joint response to application from respondents filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Reply of petitioners Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 04 2019||Letter of petitioners Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 04 2019||Reply of applicant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Response to Petitioner's January 4, 2019 Letter of Ryan Karnoski, et al. not accepted for filing. (January 10, 2019 -To be re-submitted as a supplemental brief in compliance with Rule 33.1)|
|Jan 09 2019||Supplemental brief of respondents Ryan Karnoski, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Jan 22 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation for Moral Law GRANTED.|
|Jan 22 2019||Application (18A625) referred to the Court.|
|Jan 22 2019||Petition DENIED.|
|Jan 22 2019||Application (18A625) granted by the Court. The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s December 11, 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.|
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
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.