|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1146||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether a determination that a law is content-based leaves room for a court to apply something less than strict scrutiny, specifically (a) whether the court's decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert establishes a bright-line rule for content-based speech, (b) whether content-based, compelled speech is subject to lower scrutiny if it is deemed to be an abortion-related disclosure, and (c) whether the First Amendment permits lower scrutiny for content-based restrictions on professional speech or professional facilities; and (2) whether a law requiring religious nonprofits to post a government message antithetical to their beliefs triggers heightened or minimal scrutiny under the free exercise clause.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 20 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 21, 2017)|
|Apr 11 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.|
|Apr 14 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 24, 2017.|
|Apr 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. VIDED|
|May 24 2017||Brief of respondents State Respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 02 2017||Reply of petitioners A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic, et al. filed.|
|Jun 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 19 2017||Record Requested.|
|Jun 19 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Jun 21 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Sep 21 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 02 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 02 2017||Letter of November 2, 2017, counsel for petitioners received. (Distributed)|
|Nov 02 2017||Letter of November 2, 2017, from counsel for respondent. VIDED (Distributed)|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Jun 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2018.|
|Jun 28 2018||Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U. S. ____ (2018).|
|Jul 30 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.