|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1521||1st Cir.||Oct 15, 2019||Jun 1, 2020||9-0||Breyer||OT 2019|
Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 1, 2020. Justices Thomas and Sotomayor filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 05 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 8, 2019)|
|Jun 11 2019||Certificate of Service filed.|
|Jun 12 2019||Waiver of right of respondents Aurelius Investment, LLC, Aurelius Opportunities Fund, LLC, Lex Claims, LLC, Assured Guaranty Corp., and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. to respond filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 20 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 18-1334, 18-1475, 18-1496, 18-1514 and 18-1521 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and will be set for argument in the second week of the October 2019 argument session. Parties challenging the First Circuit’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue shall file an opening brief on that issue on or before Thursday, July 25, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light blue cover and are limited to 15,000 words. Parties supporting the First Circuit’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and challenging the ruling on the de facto officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief on or before Thursday, August 22, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light red cover and are limited to 20,000 words. Parties challenging the First Circuit’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and supporting the ruling on the de facto officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief and reply on or before Thursday, September 19, 2019. The briefs are to bear a yellow cover and are limited to 13,000 words. Parties challenging the First Circuit’s ruling on the de facto officer doctrine issue shall file with the Clerk and serve upon counsel a reply brief limited to that issue on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, October 8, 2019. The briefs are to bear a tan cover and are limited to 6,000 words. Amicus curiae briefs challenging the First Circuit’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or supporting the ruling on the de facto officer doctrine issue are to be filed on or before Thursday, August 1, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light green cover and are limited to 9,000 words. Amicus curiae briefs supporting the First Circuit’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or challenging the ruling on the de facto officer doctrine issue are to be filed on or before Thursday, August 29, 2019. The briefs are to bear a dark green cover and are limited to 9,000 words. An amicus curiae shall file only a single brief.|
|Jun 20 2019||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 18-1334. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-1334. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the fling is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 15, 2019. VIDED|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.|
|Aug 26 2019||The record from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is located on PACER, with the exception of the appendix located electronically.|
|Aug 29 2019||Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Puerto Rico is electronic. All other non confidential filings are located on PACER.|
|Oct 15 2019||Argued. For Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Washington, D. C. For United States: Jeffrey B. Wall, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Aurelius Investment, LLC, et al.: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C. For UTIER: Jessica E. Méndez-Colberg, Ponce, P. R. VIDED.|
|Jun 01 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Sotomayor, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment. VIDED.|
|Jul 06 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.