|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: Whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the act’s legislative history and the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, or whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Ysleta I) correctly subjects the pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 09 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)|
|Oct 26 2020||Waiver of right of respondent State of Texas to respond filed.|
|Oct 28 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.|
|Nov 03 2020||Brief amici curiae of Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 10 2020||Response Requested. (Due December 10, 2020)|
|Nov 12 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2020 to January 11, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 11, 2021.|
|Jan 11 2021||Brief of respondent State of Texas in opposition filed.|
|Jan 25 2021||Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, The Tribal Council, The Tribal Governor Michael Silvas or his Successor filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 27 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 22 2021||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
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.