|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|21-932||D.C. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether a records request from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol violates the Constitution or laws of the United States, entitling former President Donald Trump to a preliminary injunction prohibiting production of the records to the committee.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 23 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 24, 2022)|
|Dec 23 2021||Application (21A272) for a stay of mandate and injunction pending review, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 23 2021||Motion for expedited consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by respondents.|
|Dec 29 2021||Supplemental brief of petitioner Donald J. Trump filed.|
|Dec 29 2021||Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by Former Executive Branch Lawyers.|
|Dec 30 2021||Brief of Executive Branch Respondents in opposition filed.|
|Dec 30 2021||Response to application from Executive Branch Respondents filed.|
|Dec 30 2021||Brief of respondents Bennie G. Thompson and the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol in opposition filed.|
|Dec 30 2021||Response to application from respondents Bennie G. Thompson and the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol filed.|
|Jan 04 2022||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by States United Democracy Center, et al.|
|Jan 07 2022||Brief amicus curiae of Former White House Chief of Staff Mark R. Meadows filed.|
|Jan 11 2022||Brief amicus curiae of Jack Jordan filed.|
|Jan 11 2022||Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 13 2022||Reply of applicant Donald J. Trump filed.|
|Jan 18 2022||Brief amici curiae of Government Accountability Project, et al. filed.|
|Jan 19 2022||Application (21A272) referred to the Court.|
|Jan 19 2022||The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied. The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump’s privilege claims “under any of the tests [he] advocated,” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President, id., at 40–46. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Id., at 33 (noting no “need [to] conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court,” at a former President’s behest, may “second guess the sitting President’s” decision to release privileged documents); see also id., at 17 n. 2. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta. Justice Thomas would grant the application. Statement of Justice Kavanaugh respecting denial of application. (Detached opinion)|
|Jan 19 2022||Reply of petitioner Donald J. Trump filed.|
|Jan 26 2022||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.|
|Feb 22 2022||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by States United Democracy Center, et al. GRANTED.|
|Feb 22 2022||Petition DENIED.|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.