Visa, Inc. v. Stoumbos

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Visa, Inc. v. Stoumbos

Argument preview: The Hobbs Act as ordinary or extraordinary administrative law – Christopher Walker

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted on November 17, 2016.

Consolidated with:

Visa, Inc. v. Osborn

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-962	D.C. Cir. _	Dec 7, 2016	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 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.

Shifting arguments bring dismissal of challenge to ATM class actions (UPDATED) (Ronald Mann)
Court to hear major new controversies -- next Term (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Dec 18 2015	Application (15A654) 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 (15A654) 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.
Mar 30 2016	Brief of respondents Mary Stoumbos, et al. 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 02 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. 15-961 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Aug 05 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 1, 2016. VIDED
Aug 05 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 01 2016	Brief of petitioners Visa Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.
Sep 08 2016	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. VIDED.
Sep 08 2016	Brief amici curiae of American Society of Association Executives, et al. filed. VIDED.
Sep 08 2016	Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law Professors filed. VIDED.
Sep 08 2016	Brief amici curiae of Financial Industry Associations filed. VIDED.
Oct 03 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. VIDED
Oct 17 2016	Brief of 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 20 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for respondents.
Oct 21 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 7, 2016. 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 United States 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 01 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov 04 2016	Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Columbia is electronic and located on PACER.
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 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." 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.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: The Hobbs Act as ordinary or extraordinary administrative law – Christopher Walker

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 48

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	48
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference