|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|22A184||N.Y. S.C.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2022|
Issues: (1) Whether, under the First Amendment’s religion clauses, the New York City Human Rights Law can be applied to override Yeshiva University’s religious judgment about which student organizations to officially recognize on campus consistent with its Torah values; (2) Whether, under Employment Division v. Smith, the New York City Human Rights Law, which categorically exempts hundreds of organizations from its reach and allows individualized exceptions for “bona fide reasons of public policy,” is “neutral” and “generally applicable;" and (3) Whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 29 2022||Application (22A184) for a stay, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Aug 29 2022||Response to application (22A184) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due 5 p.m. (EDT), September 2, 2022.|
|Aug 29 2022||Blanket Consent of Yeshiva University and President Ari Berman not accepted for filing. (August 30, 2022)|
|Aug 30 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Professor Douglas Laycock.|
|Sep 01 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and Coalition for Jewish Values.|
|Sep 01 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Orthodox Jewish Organizations.|
|Sep 02 2022||Response to application from respondents YU Pride Alliance, Molly Meisels, Doniel Weinreich, Amitai Miller, and Anonymous filed.|
|Sep 02 2022||Proof of Service of Agudath Israel of America not accepted for filing. (September 07, 2022)|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Chief Rabbi of South Africa, et al.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Agudath Israel of America.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Archdiocese of New York, et al.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New Civil Liberties Alliance.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Professor Richard A. Epstein.|
|Sep 02 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Association of Classical Christian Schools, et al.|
|Sep 03 2022||Reply of applicant Yeshiva University, et al. filed|
|Sep 06 2022||Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae of Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Rabbi Dr. Warren Goldstein, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine, Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman; Rabbi and Rabbinical Judge of the Upper Beth Din of Israel, Rabbi Eliezer Igra, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, and Rabbinical Council of America not accepted for filing. (September 08, 2022--Corrected version to be submitted)|
|Sep 07 2022||Letter Advising of the Addition of Amicus to Previously Filed Brief of Council for Christian Colleges & Universities not accepted for filing. (September 14, 2022)|
|Sep 08 2022||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis.|
|Sep 09 2022||Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants and the response and reply field thereto, it is ordered that the injunction of the New York trial court, case No. 154010/2021, is hereby stayed pending further order of Justice Sotomayor or of the Court.|
|Sep 14 2022||Application (22A184) referred to the Court.|
|Sep 14 2022||The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated. Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion. If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent. (Detached Opinion)|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.