In previous years, the Court released ... (click to view)
Editor's Note :
In previous years, the Court released orders the morning after the Court’s “Long Conference.” It has not done so this year. Beginning last Term, the Court consistently considered petitions at least two times before granting certiorari. To the extent that practice continues -- and there is no affirmative evidence the Court intends to drop it -- we would not expect orders granting certiorari today.
Issue: (1) Whether a district court exercising inherent equitable power may impose a monetary sanction in an amount that exceeds the defendant’s unjust enrichment (as the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have held, in conflict with the Second, Third,
and Eleventh Circuits); (2) whether the standard of Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail – which held
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits modifying consent decrees based on a “significant change in circumstances” – applies to all modification requests (as the First, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held), only those made by defendants (as the Third and D.C. Circuits have held), only those in institutional reform cases (as the Federal Circuit has held), only those in cases affecting the public interest (as the Second Circuit has held), or only those made by defendants in institutional reform cases (as the Seventh Circuit
held here); and (3) whether advertisements for a book that extensively quote the book are “inextricably intertwined” with fully protected speech and thus entitled to full First Amendment protection.
Proceedings and Orders
Apr 19 2012
Application (11A1005) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 29, 2012 to June 28, 2012, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Apr 23 2012
Application (11A1005) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 28, 2012.