|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-623||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Jun 17, 2013||TBD||TBD||OT 2013|
Issue: (1) Whether respondent Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) has Article III standing to challenge the Forest Service’s 2004 programmatic amendments to the forest plans governing management of 11 Sierra Nevada Forests when PRC failed to establish that any of its members was imminently threatened with cognizable harm because he or she would come into contact with any parcel of forest affected by the amendments; (2) whether PRC’s challenge to the Forest Service’s programmatic amendments is ripe when PRC failed to identify any site-specific project authorized under the amended plan provisions to which PRC objects; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act required the Forest Service, when adopting the programmatic amendments, to analyze every type of environmental effect that any project ultimately authorized under the amendments throughout the 11 affected forests might have if it was reasonably possible to do so when the programmatic amendments were adopted, even though any future site-specific project would require its own appropriate environmental analysis before going forward.
Judgment: The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to dismiss the case as moot in its entirety. on June 17, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 4 2012||Application (12A219) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 18, 2012 to October 18, 2012, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Sep 5 2012||Application (12A219) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until October 18, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||Application (12A219) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 18, 2012 to November 16, 2012, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Oct 9 2012||Application (12A219) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until November 16, 2012.|
|Nov 16 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 17, 2012)|
|Dec 3 2012||Waiver of right of respondents California Forestry Association, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 6 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus cuirae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Dec 11 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 15, 2013.|
|Dec 17 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Forest Resource Council, et al. filed.|
|Dec 17 2012||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Public Lands Council, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association.|
|Feb 15 2013||Brief of respondent Pacific Rivers Council in opposition filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Feb 28 2013||Reply of petitioners United States Forest Service, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Public Lands Council, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association GRANTED.|
|Mar 18 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 12, 2013.|
|Apr 12 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 23, 2013.|
|Apr 26 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Pacific Rivers Council.|
|May 9 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent California Forestry Association, and American Forest & Paper Association.|
|Jun 3 2013||Motion to vacate judgment below and dismiss as moot filed by respondent Pacific Rivers Council.|
|Jun 6 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 17, 2013.|
|Jun 6 2013||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is further extended to and including September 25, 2013.|
|Jun 7 2013||Response of petitioners to motion to vacate judgment below and dismiss as moot filed.|
|Jun 10 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.|
|Jun 17 2013||Motion to vacate the judgment below and dismiss as moot GRANTED. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to dismiss the case as moot in its entirety.|
|Jul 19 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
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.