Supreme Court of the United States
Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business. Please see all COVID-19 announcements here.

Today at the Court - Thursday, Dec 17, 2020


Building closed to the public

  • Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business. Please see all COVID-19 announcements here.
  • All public lectures and visitor programs are temporarily suspended.
  • The Court may announce opinions on Friday, December 18. The Court will not take the Bench. Opinions will be posted on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<<December 2020><<
December 2020
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
2021222324
 
26
2728293031  
       
Calendar Info/Key

 



Recent Decisions


December 14, 2020
       
Shinn v. Kayer (19-1302) (Per Curiam)
Under the deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority in rejecting the state court’s determination that Kayer failed to show prejudice in his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

     
Texas v. New Mexico (65, Orig.)
Texas’s motion to review the Pecos River Master’s determination—that New Mexico was entitled to a delivery credit for evaporated water stored at Texas’s request under the Pecos River Compact—is denied.



December 10, 2020
         
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn. (18-540)
Arkansas’ Act 900—which effectively requires pharmacy benefit managers to reimburse Arkansas pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans at a price equal to or higher than the pharmacy’s wholesale cost—is not pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

         
United States v. Briggs (19-108)
Respondents’ prosecutions for military rape were timely commenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s statute of limitations.

         
Carney v. Adams (19-309)
Because plaintiff Adams has not shown that he was “able and ready” to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 262, he has failed to demonstrate Article III standing to challenge the Delaware Constitution’s political balance requirement for appointments to the State’s major courts.

         
Tanzin v. Tanvir (19-71)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’s express remedies provision, see 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.



More Opinions...

Did You Know...

First Woman to Argue Before the Supreme Court


In November 1880, Belva Lockwood became the first woman to argue before the Supreme Court when she argued Kaiser  v. Stickney. The case concerned a $16,000 debt owed by Lockwood’s client, Caroline Kaiser. Ironically, given Lockwood’s beliefs and experience, she and her co-counsel invoked the legal doctrine of coverture — under which a married woman was deemed to be under her husband’s legal protection and authority — to contend that Kaiser did not have to pay the money owed. Lockwood argued in Court on Kaiser’s behalf for 20 minutes. Although Kaiser lost her case, Lockwood made history.

Belva Lockwood is one of several trailblazers featured in the exhibit, In Re Lady Lawyers: The Rise of Women Attorneys and the Supreme Court, located on the ground floor of the Supreme Court Building and currently available online.

 

Portrait of Belva Lockwood attributed to Benjamin J. Falk, circa 1880-1884.
Portrait of Belva Lockwood attributed to Benjamin J. Falk, circa 1880-1884.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543