|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-63||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, which defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” deprives same-sex couples who are lawfully married under the laws of their states (such as New York) of the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 16 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due August 16, 2012)|
|Jul 24 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 25 2012||Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed.|
|Aug 13 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 31, 2012, for all respondents.|
|Aug 31 2012||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Aug 31 2012||Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in opposition filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Sep 5 2012||Reply of petitioner Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer filed.|
|Oct 18 2012||Judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.|
|Oct 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.|
|Nov 1 2012||Supplemental brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.|
|Dec 3 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Jun 27 2013||Petition DENIED.|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.