|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-192||Fed. Cir.||Oct 2, 2012||Nov 13, 2012||9-0||Scalia||OT 2012|
Holding: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions.
Plain English Holding: After James Bormes paid a fee to the United States over the Internet, he argued that the receipt displayed too much information about his credit card. When he tried to sue the United States for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal government countered that it was immune from lawsuits seeking money. A federal court in Washington agreed with Bormes, concluding that he could sue the United States for money damages under the Little Tucker Act, which allows lawsuits like the one brought by Bormes to go forward in the federal trial courts around the country. The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court reversed. It held that the Little Tucker Act did not apply to cases brought under the FCRA, and it sent the case to another federal court for it to decide whether the suit should still go forward under that Act.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on November 13, 2012.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 2 2011||Application (10A1172) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 13, 2011 to July 13, 2011, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jun 3 2011||Application (10A1172) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 13, 2011.|
|Jul 1 2011||Application (10A1172) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 13, 2011 to August 12, 2011, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jul 1 2011||Application (10A1172) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 12, 2011.|
|Aug 12 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 15, 2011)|
|Sep 28 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 14, 2011.|
|Oct 6 2011||Response Requested . (Due November 7, 2011)|
|Oct 19 2011||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 7, 2011.|
|Dec 7 2011||Brief of respondent James X. Bormes in opposition filed.|
|Dec 21 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2012.|
|Dec 22 2011||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 13 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 17 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including April 13, 2012.|
|Mar 9 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner the United States.|
|Apr 2 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Apr 13 2012||Brief of petitioner the United States filed.|
|May 4 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 3, 2012.|
|Jul 3 2012||Brief of respondent James X. Bormes filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR AGRUMENT ON Tuesday, October 2, 2012|
|Jul 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 31 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for Federal Circuit. (1 envelope)|
|Aug 2 2012||Reply of petitioner the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 22 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Illinois is electronic.|
|Oct 2 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Sri Srinivasan, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: John G. Jabobs, Chicago, Ill.|
|Nov 13 2012||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Dec 17 2012||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 23 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for Federal Circuit.|
#SCOTUS announces that it will hold a formal, although "purely ceremonial," investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett next Friday. Attendance at the ceremony is by invitation only, & press coverage will be pooled. Full announcement is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-24-21
Need a refresher on "cert before judgment" practice at SCOTUS? We've got you covered.
@steve_vladeck examined the practice (among other types of extraordinary relief) in 2018: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/power-versus-discretion-extraordinary-relief-and-the-supreme-court/
And Kevin Russell wrote a detailed explainer in 2011:
Abortion providers in Texas return to Supreme Court, now asking the justices for immediate review on the merits of their challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban (cert. before judgment)
The Supreme Court will have a new oral argument procedure when they return to the bench Oct. 4. There will be an opportunity for individual questioning by each justice in order of seniority.
Interesting new procedure for oral arguments when the justices return to in-person arguments next month. Does it increase the chances that we will continue to hear from Justice Thomas, who was an active participant using the taking-turns format? https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1440318536723812363
NEW: The Supreme Court just released its December argument calendar. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the term's big abortion case, will be argued Dec. 1.
#SCOTUS will hear oral argument in Mississippi abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1. Full December argument calendar is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2021.pdf
We noted yesterday that Justice Thomas was speaking at Notre Dame but that there was no livestream. A video of his speech is now posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kb4bFYdujA
Thomas criticized the media and defended the court's independence. Seems to be a theme among the justices lately.
💥 Breyer continues book tour (including @colbertlateshow two nights ago).
💥 Barrett gave a speech Sunday @uofl.
💥 Thomas is slated to give the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture today @NotreDame (but, like Barrett's speech, there is apparently no livestream).
Incidentally, Gorsuch had been scheduled to give a speech at the University of Wyoming today, but his visit was canceled due to COVID.
Nothing from Kagan or Gorsuch though 😢 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1438530948207874050