|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-1778||D.C. Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) clearly authorizes the EPA to decide such matters of vast economic and poitical significance as whether and how to restructure the nation’s energy system.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 18 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2021)|
|Jun 25 2021||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC|
|Jul 22 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2021 to August 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 22 2021||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.|
|Jul 23 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 5, 2021, for all respondents.|
|Aug 05 2021||Brief of respondents Consolidated Edison, Inc., Exelon Corporation, National Grid USA, New York Power Authority, Power Companies Climate Coalition, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 05 2021||Brief of respondents Non-Governmental Organization and Trade Association Respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 05 2021||Brief of respondents Federal respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 05 2021||Brief of respondents States and Municipalities in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 24 2021||Reply of petitioner Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 25 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.|
|Oct 04 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.|
|Oct 12 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.|
|Oct 25 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.|
|Oct 29 2021||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 20-1530, No. 20-1531, and No. 20-1780 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The motion of Lignite Energy Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 20-1780 is granted. VIDED.|
|Nov 04 2021||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 20-1530. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-1530. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Dec 17 2021||ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, February 28, 2022. VIDED.|
|Dec 21 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.