|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-99||11th Cir.||Nov 13, 2013||Dec 10, 2013||TBD||Per Curiam||OT 2013|
Issue: Whether an employer and union may violate Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186, by entering into an agreement under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer’s property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union’s promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer’s business.
Judgment: Dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on December 10, 2013. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 20 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 23, 2012)|
|Aug 22 2012||Brief of respondent Martin Mulhall in support filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Oct 10 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 31 2012||Response Requested . (Due November 30, 2012)|
|Nov 20 2012||Brief of respondent Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc.d/b/a/ Mardi Gras Gaming in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 21 2012||Response to conditional cross - petition from respondent Unite Here Local 355 filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 30 2012||Reply of cross-petitioner Martin Mulhall filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 4 2012||Reply of petitioner Unite Here Local 355 filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 14 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 3 2013||Supplemental brief of Martin Mulhall in response to brief amicius curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed) VIDED.|
|Jun 3 2013||Reply of petitioner Unite Here Local 355 to brief for United States as amicus curiae filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 24 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits in the above-entitled case is extended to and including August 15, 2013.|
|Jul 12 2013||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including September 20, 2013.|
|Jul 24 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc.|
|Jul 24 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Martin Mulhall.|
|Aug 13 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Aug 15 2013||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 15 2013||Brief of petitioner Unite Here Local 355 filed.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 13, 2013.|
|Aug 20 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Academy of Arbitrators filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Sep 16 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit. (1 envelope)|
|Sep 17 2013||Record received from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of Florida. (1 box)|
|Sep 20 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 20 2013||Brief of respondent Martin Mulhall filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 20 2013||Brief of respondent Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 27 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Council on Labor Law Equality filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 27 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 18 2013||Reply of petitioner Unite Here Local 355 filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 21 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Richard G. McCracken, San Francisco, Cal.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) for respondents: William L. Messenger, Springfield, Va.|
|Dec 10 2013||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Breyer, J., with whom Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., join, dissenting. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jan 13 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jan 15 2014||Record from U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida has been returned.|
|Jan 15 2014||Record from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit has been returned.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.