|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-281||E.D. Va.||Mar 18, 2019||Jun 17, 2019||5-4||Ginsburg||OT 2018|
Holding: The House of Delegates lacks standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 17, 2019. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 04 2018||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due October 9, 2018)|
|Oct 09 2018||Motion to dismiss filed by State Appellees'.|
|Oct 09 2018||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Golden Bethune-Hill, et al.|
|Oct 23 2018||Opposition to appellees' motions to dismiss or affirm from appellants Virginia House of Delegates, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. In addition to the questions presented by the jurisdictional statement, the parties are directed to fully brief the following question: Whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal.|
|Dec 13 2018||Application (18A629) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 14 2018||Response to application (18A629) requested by The Chief Justice, due Thursday, December 20, 2018, by noon ET.|
|Dec 20 2018||Response to application from respondents Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. filed.|
|Dec 20 2018||Response to application from respondents Golden Bethune Hill, et al. filed.|
|Dec 21 2018||Reply of applicant Virginia House of Delegates, et al. filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Virginia House of Delegates, et al.|
|Dec 28 2018||Joint appendix filed (9 volumes). (Statement of costs received)|
|Dec 28 2018||Brief of appellants Virginia House of Delegates, et al. filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of Lee Chatfield, in His Official Capacity as Speaker-Elect of The Michigan House of Representatives, et al. filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Legislative Exchange Council, et al. filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 08 2019||Application (18A629) referred to the Court.|
|Jan 08 2019||Application (18A629) denied by the Court.|
|Jan 25 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 18, 2019|
|Jan 28 2019||Brief of appellees Golden Bethune-Hill, et al. filed.|
|Jan 28 2019||Brief of State Appellees filed.|
|Jan 29 2019||Blanket Consent filed by appellees Bethune-Hill, et al.|
|Jan 31 2019||Joint motion for divided argument filed by appellees.|
|Feb 01 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 04 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed.|
|Feb 14 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 19 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 19 2019||Joint motion of appellees for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument GRANTED in part, and the time is divided as follows: 25 minutes for appellants, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General as amicus curiae, 10 minutes for appellees Virginia State Board of Elections, et al., and 15 minutes for appellees Golden Bethune-Hill, et al.|
|Feb 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of VA.|
|Feb 27 2019||Reply of appellants Virginia House of Delegates, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2019||The record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of Virginia. (1 Envelop and 3 Boxes).|
|Mar 18 2019||Argued. For appellants: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Morgan L. Ratner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For appellees Virginia State Board of Elections, et al.: Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General of Virginia, Richmond, Va. For appellees Golden Bethune-Hill, et al.: Marc E. Elias, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 17 2019||Appeal dismissed. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 19 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
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...
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.