|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-961||D.C. Cir. _||
Dec 7, 2016
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: Whether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as the court of appeals held below, or are insufficient, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 18 2015||Application (15A653) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 27, 2015 to January 27, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Dec 22 2015||Application (15A653) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 27, 2016.|
|Jan 27 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 29, 2016)|
|Feb 11 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 30, 2016.|
|Feb 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Society of Association Executives filed.|
|Feb 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law Professors filed.|
|Mar 30 2016||Brief of respondents Sam Osborn, Andrew Mackmin, Barbara Inglis in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Apr 11 2016||Reply of petitioners Visa Inc., et al. filed.|
|Apr 13 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|May 2 2016||Rescheduled.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.|
|Jun 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016.|
|Jun 28 2016||Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 15-962 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 1, 2016. VIDED|
|Aug 5 2016||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including October 17, 2016. VIDED|
|Aug 31 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Visa Inc., et al. VIDED.|
|Aug 31 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the petitioners. VIDED|
|Sep 1 2016||Brief of petitioners Visa Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of the United States of America, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Society of Association Executives, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law Professors filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Financial Industry Associations filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 3 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. VIDED|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief of respondents Consumer Respondents filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief of the Non-Consumer Respondents filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 20 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Inc. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 7, 2016. VIDED|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 24 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law Professors and Economists filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Retail Federation, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amicus curiae of ATM Industry Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 1 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
|Nov 4 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Columbia is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Nov 4 2016||Record received from U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received are the oral argument transcripts, this record is electronic.|
|Nov 14 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 16 2016||Reply of petitioners Visa Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Nov 17 2016||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. These cases were granted to resolve [w]hether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the associations rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.. Pet. for Cert. in No. 15-961, p. i, and No. 15-962, p. I. After [h]aving persuaded us to grant certiorari on this issue, however, petitioners chose to rely on a different argument in their merits briefing. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U. S. __, (2015) (slip op., at 7). The Court, therefore, orders that the writs in these cases be dismissed as improvidently granted. VIDED.|
|Dec 19 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.