|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-915||9th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 04 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2021)|
|Jan 19 2021||Waiver of right of respondent H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., et al. to respond filed.|
|Jan 27 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 09 2021||Response Requested. (Due March 11, 2021)|
|Mar 04 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 11, 2021 to April 1, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 05 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 1, 2021.|
|Mar 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of American Society of Media Photographers and California Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed.|
|Apr 01 2021||Brief of respondents H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 12 2021||Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 21, 2021 to May 4, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 13 2021||Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until May 4, 2021 granted.|
|May 03 2021||Reply of petitioner Unicolors, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|May 04 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.|
|May 24 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.|
|Jun 01 2021||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
In clash between private property rights and pro-union interests, the Supreme Court invalidates a California regulation that requires agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto their property to speak with workers. SCOTUS says the regulation violates the 5th Amendment.
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
In the second Supreme Court opinion of the day, the court holds that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) is unconstitutional because of the limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's director.
The Supreme Court issues its opinion in the "hot pursuit" case -- a case about when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. In an opinion by Kagan, the court declines to adopt a bright-line rule on "hot pursuits" of people suspected of misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court will release one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. Join us on the live blog beginning at 9:45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.