City of Los Angeles v. Patel
Holding
Los Angeles Municipal Code " 41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a ninety-day period and to make those records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand, is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for pre-compliance review.
Judgment
Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Sonia Sotomayor on Jun 22, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinions, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
Mar 24, 2014Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2014)
Apr 25, 2014Waiver of right of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. to respond filed.
May 6, 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014.
May 19, 2014Response Requested . (Due June 18, 2014)
May 28, 2014Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 18, 2014.
Jul 10, 2014Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 18, 2014.
Aug 12, 2014Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. in opposition filed.Aug 25, 2014Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed.Aug 27, 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Oct 6, 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.
Oct 14, 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.
Oct 16, 2014Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed)
Oct 16, 2014Letter from counsel for the petitioner received. (Distributed)
Oct 20, 2014Petition GRANTED.
Nov 5, 2014The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 15, 2014.
Nov 5, 2014The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 23, 2015.
Nov 17, 2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Nov 18, 2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.
Dec 15, 2014Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Dec 15, 2014Brief of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed.
Dec 19, 2014Brief amici curiae of County of Los Angeles, et al. filed.
Dec 19, 2014Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.
Dec 22, 2014SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Dec 22, 2014Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al., filed.
Dec 22, 2014Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research filed.
Dec 22, 2014Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Dec 22, 2014Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed.
Dec 22, 2014Brief amicus curiae of Love146 in support of neither party filed.Dec 22, 2014Brief amici curiae of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., et al. filed.Dec 22, 2014Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 22, 2014Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Jan 5, 2015Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California Western Division. (1 - Box)
Jan 7, 2015CIRCULATED.
Jan 9, 2015Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Jan 23, 2015Brief of respondents Naranjibhai Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jan 29, 2015Brief amici curiae of Professors Adam Lamparello and Charles E. MacLean filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of Asian American Hotel Owners Association filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of United States Chamber of Commerce filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)Jan 30, 2015Brief amicus curiae of Google Inc. filed. (Distributed)Feb 18, 2015Reply of petitioner City of Los Angeles, California filed. (Distributed)Feb 20, 2015Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 3, 2015Argued. For petitioner: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.Jun 22, 2015Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.
Jul 23, 2015Record (1-box) returned to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
Jul 24, 2015JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Recommended Citation: City of Los Angeles v. Patel, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/city-of-los-angeles-v-patel/