|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-380||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2014|
Issue: (1) Whether Vermont laws requiring a non-profit issue-advocacy and lobby group that is not under the control of a candidate, and whose major purpose is not the election or nomination of candidates to be a political committee if it receives $1000 in contributions or makes $1000 in expenditures “in any two-year election cycle for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates [or] influencing an election” are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) whether Vermont’s electioneering-communication and mass-media-activities laws are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) whether Vermont law setting a $100 threshold for political committees for reporting contributions is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) whether Vermont’s political committee contribution limit as applied to political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not make contributions to candidates is unconstitutional as applied to independent-expenditure-only groups under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 29 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2014)|
|Oct 15 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 3, 2014.|
|Nov 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of United States Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, et al. filed.|
|Nov 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Center for Competitive Politics, and Cato Institute filed.|
|Dec 3 2014||Brief of respondents William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 16 2014||Reply of petitioner Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed).|
|Dec 17 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jan 12 2015||Petition DENIED.|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.