|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-783||11th Cir.||Nov 30, 2020||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 18 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 17, 2020)|
|Jan 07 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Nathan Van Buren.|
|Jan 10 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 17, 2020 to February 18, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 18, 2020.|
|Jan 17 2020||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jan 17 2020||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jan 31 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 18, 2020 to March 10, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 31 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 10, 2020.|
|Mar 10 2020||Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.|
|Mar 18 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/3/2020.|
|Mar 18 2020||Reply of petitioner Nathan Van Buren filed.|
|Apr 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.|
|Apr 20 2020||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 29 2020||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|May 06 2020||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 1, 2020. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2020.|
|Jun 04 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Nathan Van Buren|
|Jul 01 2020||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jul 01 2020||Brief of petitioner Nathan Van Buren filed.|
|Jul 07 2020||Brief amici curiae of The R Street Institute, et al. filed.|
|Jul 07 2020||Brief amici curiae of Kyratso Karahalios, et al. filed.|
|Jul 07 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Association of Medical Device Service Organizations filed.|
|Jul 07 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Association of Medical Device Reprocessors filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Justice filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The United States Technology Policy Committee of the ACM in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amici curiae of Technology Companies filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Orin S. Kerr filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amici curiae of Computer Security Researchers, et al. filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Markup filed.|
|Aug 27 2020||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association filed.|
|Sep 01 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Managed Funds Association filed.|
|Sep 02 2020||Brief amici curiae of Karen Heart and Anthony Volini of CIPLIT filed.|
|Sep 03 2020||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed.|
|Sep 03 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Voatz, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 03 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Digital Justice Foundation filed.|
|Sep 16 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 30, 2020.|
|Sep 28 2020||Reply of petitioner Nathan Van Buren filed.|
|Oct 08 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Oct 13 2020||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 27 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 04 2020||Record received from the U.S.D.C Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) Some sealed materials. One Envelope.|
|Nov 30 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.