|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|
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
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.