|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1504||E.D.V.A.||Mar 21, 2016||May 23, 2016||8-0||Breyer||OT 2015|
Holding: The appellants, members of Congress, who intervened to help defend Virginia’s 2013 congressional redistricting plan, lack standing to pursue an appeal of the district court’s holding that the plan was unconstitutional.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 23, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 22 2015||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due July 22, 2015)|
|Jul 22 2015||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Gloria Personhuballah, and James Farkas.|
|Jul 22 2015||Motion to affirm filed by appellees Virginia State Board of Elections.|
|Aug 4 2015||Reply of Appellants opposing motions to dismiss or affirm filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 5 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Sep 28 2015||The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Whether appellants have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The briefs, not to exceed 15 pages each, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Tuesday, October 13, 2015. Reply briefs, not to exceed 10 pages each, are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Tuesday, October 20, 2015.|
|Oct 13 2015||Supplemental brief of appellees Gloria Personhuballah, and James Farkas filed.|
|Oct 13 2015||Supplemental brief of appellee Virginia State Board of Elections filed.|
|Oct 13 2015||Supplemental brief of appellants Robert J. Wittman, et al., filed.|
|Oct 20 2015||Reply brief on standing of appellees Gloria Personhuballah and James Farkas filed.|
|Oct 20 2015||Reply brief on standing of appellants Robert J. Wittman, et al., filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 20 2015||Reply brief on standing of appellee Virginia State Board of Elections filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 21 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2015.|
|Nov 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Nov 13 2015||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 brief and argue the following question: Whether Appellants lack standing because none reside in or represent the only congressional district whose constitutionality is at issue in this case.|
|Dec 28 2015||Brief of appellants Robert J. Wittman, et al., Appellants filed.|
|Dec 28 2015||Joint appendix filed (3 Volumes). (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of Alabama and Texas filed.|
|Jan 12 2016||Application (15A724) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jan 14 2016||Response to application (15A724) requested by The Chief Justice, due Thursday, January 21, 2016, by 4 p.m. EST.|
|Jan 21 2016||Response to application from respondent Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. filed.|
|Jan 21 2016||Response to application from respondent Gloria Personhuballah and James Farkas filed.|
|Jan 21 2016||Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief pursuant to Rule 33.2 filed by Virginia State Conference of the NAACP.|
|Jan 22 2016||Reply of applicant Robert J. Wittman, et al., Appellants filed.|
|Jan 27 2016||Brief of appellees Gloria Personhuballah and James Farkas filed.|
|Jan 27 2016||Brief of appellees Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. filed.|
|Jan 29 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 21, 2016|
|Feb 1 2016||Application (15A724) referred to the Court.|
|Feb 1 2016||Application (15A724) denied by the Court.|
|Feb 2 2016||Motion for divided argument and enlargement of time for oral argument filed by State appellees.|
|Feb 3 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Virginia State Conference of the NAACP filed.|
|Feb 3 2016||Brief amicus curiae of OneVirginia2021: Virginians for Fair Redistricting filed.|
|Feb 4 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellees Gloria Personhuballah and James Farkas.|
|Feb 8 2016||Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of VA. Richmond Div.|
|Feb 10 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 12 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of Virginia is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of 1 Box.|
|Feb 26 2016||Reply of appellants Robert J. Wittman, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 29 2016||Motion for divided argument and enlargement of time for oral argument filed by State appellees GRANTED and the time is divided as follows: 35 minutes for appellants, 10 minutes for State appellees, 15 minutes for private appellees, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.|
|Feb 29 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 10 2016||Record received again from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia. (1 Envelope)|
|Mar 21 2016||Argued. For appellants: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For the State appellees: Stuart A. Raphael, Solicitor General of Virginia, Richmond, Va. For the private appellees: Marc E. Elias, Washington, D. C. For United States as amicus curiae in support of appellees: Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 25 2016||Letter, dated March 25, 2016, received from counsel for the appellants Robert J. Wittman, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|May 23 2016||Appeal dismissed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 24 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 18 2016||Record from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia has been returned.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.