|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19A60||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 12 2019||Application (19A60) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jul 12 2019||Response to application (19A60) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, July 19, 2019, by 4 p.m. ET.|
|Jul 19 2019||Response to application from respondents Sierra Club, et al. filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by California, et al.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by U.S. House of Representatives.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Tohono O'odham Nation.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Rep. Andy Barr.|
|Jul 22 2019||Reply of applicant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.|
|Jul 26 2019||Application (19A60) referred to the Court.|
|Jul 26 2019||Application (19A60) granted by the Court. The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent 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 timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment. JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN would deny the application. JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in part and dissenting inpart from grant of stay. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jul 22 2020||Motion to lift stay filed by Sierra Club, et al.|
|Jul 23 2020||Response to motion requested, due Wednesday, July 29, by 4 p.m. ET.|
|Jul 24 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by United States House of Representatives.|
|Jul 28 2020||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by U.S. Rep. Andy Barr.|
|Jul 28 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Courts Scholars.|
|Jul 28 2020||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Former Members of Congress.|
|Jul 29 2020||Response to motion from Trump, President of U.S., et al. filed.|
|Jul 30 2020||Reply of Sierra Club, et al. filed.|
|Jul 31 2020||The motion to lift stay is denied. JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting from denial of motion to lift stay. (Detached Opinion).|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.