The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.[1]
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[2]
The court heard all oral arguments in cases accepted for the term remotely via teleconference and provided live audio streams of the argument sessions. The court made the decision in accordance with public health guidance in response to COVID-19.[3][4][5][6][7][8]Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.
See the sections below for additional information on the October 2020 term of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Cases by circuit: This section lists the cases being heard by court of origination (e.g., federal appellate courts, federal district courts, state courts, etc.).
Cases by sitting: This section lists the cases being heard by date of oral argument.
Cases by date of opinion: This section lists the cases by the date the court released an opinion.
Term data: This section provides information on the cases SCOTUS decided, including case names, decisions, vote totals, opinion authors, and courts of origination. It also includes information on SCOTUS case reversal rates.
Case history: This section provides information on previous SCOTUS terms.
Parties petition SCOTUS to hear a case if they are not satisfied with a lower court's decision. The parties petition the court to grant a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is an "order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case it will hear on appeal."[9][10]
Court announces teleconferences for April, May sittings[edit]
On April 9, 2021, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its April and May sittings. The arguments followed the same format the court used for its March sitting.[8][31]
Court announces teleconferences for March sitting[edit]
On February 24, 2021, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its March sitting. The arguments followed the same format the court used for its February sitting.[7]
Court announces teleconferences for February sitting[edit]
On January 22, 2021, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its February sitting. The arguments followed the same format the court used for its January sitting.[6][32]
Court announces teleconferences for January sitting[edit]
On January 5, 2021, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its January sitting. The arguments followed the same format the court used for its December sitting.[5]
Court announces teleconferences for November and December sittings[edit]
On October 9, 2020, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its November and December sittings. The arguments followed the same format the court used for its October 2020 and May 2019 sittings.[4]Click here for more information on the cases the court decided to hear in November and December 2020.
Court announces teleconferences for October sitting[edit]
On September 16, 2020, the court announced it would hear oral arguments via teleconference for its October sitting following the same format that was used during its May sitting in the 2019-2020 term. The court announced that a live audio feed would be made available to the public as it was during the 2019-2020 May sitting.[3]Click here for more information on the cases the court decided to hear in October 2020.
For more information on the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic during its October 2019-2020 term, click here.
Justice Sotomayor denies request to halt enforcement of New York City vaccine mandate[edit]
October 1, 2021: Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a request from four teachers and teaching assistants in New York City to halt enforcement of the city’s vaccine mandate for public school employees pending the results of their legal challenge in lower courts. The mandate requires that public school employees must be vaccinated for COVID-19 by October 1, or be placed on unpaid leave until September 2022. The challengers alleged that the mandate is discriminatory on the basis that some city employees may remain employed without being vaccinated if they receive weekly coronavirus tests. The request was denied without being referred to the full court. Justice Sotomayor was the assigned circuit justice in New York.[33][34][35]
Justice Kavanaugh tests positive for coronavirus[edit]
October 1, 2021: SCOTUS announced that Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for coronavirus. The court stated that Kavanaugh tested positive on Thursday, September 30, following a routine test, adding that he was asymptomatic and had been fully vaccinated since January 2021. Kavanaugh would not attend the October 1 investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh and the other eight justices had tested negative as of Monday, September 27, prior to the justices’ conference.[36][37]
September 28, 2021: In the case Rhoades v. Martinez, SCOTUS rejected an appeal to block the execution of Texas inmate Rick Rhoades. Rhoades was sentenced to death after being convicted in the 1991 stabbing deaths of two brothers. After the court turned down Rhoades' appeal, Rhoades was executed by lethal injection.[38][39]
September 8, 2021: In the case Ramirez v. Collier, SCOTUS granted John Ramirez's application for a stay of execution and granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to hear arguments in the case on its merits docket during the 2021-2022 term. Ramirez was sentenced to death for a murder conviction. Ramirez requested to have his pastor be permitted to pray aloud and physically touch him in the execution chamber while the sentence was carried out. The State of Texas refused the request. Ramirez argued that the denial was a violation of his constitutional rights and of federal protections for inmates' religious rights. The state argued that it did not force Ramirez to violate his religion, rather it declined to accommodate all of his religious needs.[40][41][42][43]
Court rejects emergency appeal to Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy[edit]
August 31, 2021-September 1, 2021: SCOTUS did not respond to an emergency appeal filed by a group of abortion providers seeking to block enforcement of a Texas law that banned abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law. The latter authorization allowed private citizens to bring civil actions against individuals for aiding a patient with getting an abortion. The bill, S.B. 8, was signed into law on May 19, 2021, by GovernorGreg Abbott (R). The appellants argued that the law violated the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), establishing the constitutional right to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability approximately 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The emergency appeal was submitted through the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to Justice Samuel Alito, who was assigned to the circuit and responsible for reviewing emergency appeals. As the circuit justice, Alito was authorized to respond to the request himself or refer the matter to the full court for consideration.[44][45][46]
On September 1, the court issued a 5-4 ruling denying the request to block enforcement of the Texas law. In the unsigned opinion, the court ruled:[47][48]
“
The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. ... And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. ... The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law. Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.[49]
In his dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[47]
“
The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then
essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing
and enforcing the regulatory regime. ...[49]
In his dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, Justice Breyer wrote:[47]
“
I recognize that Texas’s law delegates the State’s power to prevent abortions not to one person (such as a district attorney) or to a few persons (such as a group of government officials or private citizens) but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference. That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm.[49]
In her dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[47]
“
The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention. Ante, at 1. Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.[49]
In her dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, Justice Kagan wrote:[47]
“
Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72 hours’ thought, this Court greenlights the operation of Texas’s patently unconstitutional law banning most abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court’s ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them—in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey.
Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. I respectfully dissent.[49]
Court issues ruling on federal eviction moratorium[edit]
August 26, 2021: In a 6-3 per curiam ruling, SCOTUS granted an application, filed by the Alabama Association of REALTORS et al, to vacate the nationwide moratorium on evictions of tenants living in a county experiencing substantial or high levels of COVID–19 transmission and who make declarations of financial need. The moratorium was imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in response to the coronavirus pandemic. In the unsigned opinion, the court stated, "If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it. The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted." Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[50][51]
“
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued an order that, in light of the rise of the COVID–19 Delta variant, temporarily prohibits certain evictions in high-transmission counties through October 3. Today, this Court, as an emergency matter, without full briefing or argument, blocks that order by vacating a lower court’s stay. I think the Court is wrong to do so, and I dissent.[49]
Court rejects application for stay of Trump administration "remain in Mexico" policy[edit]
August 24, 2021: SCOTUS denied the Biden administration's application for a stay, or a halt, of a United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas injunction requiring the reinstatement of a Trump administration program referred to as the "remain in Mexico" policy. The policy requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting a U.S. immigration court hearing. In the order, it was stated that Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan would have granted the application.[52][53]
Justice Barrett denies request for injunction of groundbreaking for Obama presidential library[edit]
August 20, 2021: Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied a request for an application for injunctive relief filed by Protect Our Parks, Inc. The application requested that the court block the groundbreaking construction and excavation related to building the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park in Chicago, Illinois.[54][55]
Court issues ruling on state eviction moratorium[edit]
August 12, 2021: In a 6-3 per curiam ruling, SCOTUS granted an application for injunctive relief filed by a group of landlords in New York. The application requested that the court lift part of a state moratorium on residential evictions–Part A of the COVID Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA)–established in 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.[56][57] In his dissent, Justice Breyer stated:[56]
“
First, the legal rights at issue in this case are not “indisputably clear.”
... Second, applicants have not shown that critical or exigent circumstances justify our intervention.
... Third, the public interest weighs in favor of respecting New York's "especially broad" latitude "to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties."[49]
”
Justice Barrett denies request related to university vaccine requirement[edit]
August 12, 2021: Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied a request for an application for injunctive relief filed by a group of students at Indiana University. The application requested that the court block the school’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students. The request was denied without being referred to the full court.[58][59]
Court issues ruling on CDC eviction moratorium[edit]
June 29, 2021: In a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moratorium on evictions to remain in place through July 31, 2021, when the CDC planned to end the moratorium. In the case Alabama Association of REALTORS v. Department of Health and Human Services, the petitioner submitted an application to the court to vacate the stay. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett would grant the application. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment.[60]
SCOTUS denied review in the case Standing Akimbo v. United States. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and concerned federal regulation and taxation of marijuana. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion from the denial of review.[61]
SCOTUS also denied review in the case Hernandez v. Peery. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and concerned whether the Ninth Circuit erred by denying a certificate of appealability when lower court judges were divided as to the merits of the case's constitutional question. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion from the denial of review.[61]
SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm, Gavin. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and concerned whether Title IX requires schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted the petition for review.[61][62][63]
May 24, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Johnson v. Precythe. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and concerned death-row inmate Ernest Johnson's request to alter his method of execution from lethal injection to a firing squad and contest that the latter is a more humane method of execution in his case. Johnson was missing nearly one-fifth of his brain tissue due to surgical treatment of a brain tumor. He said that the drugs used for lethal injection would risk him severe and protracted seizures.[64] Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion from the denial of review, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Justice Breyer also filed a separate dissent.[65]
May 3, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Doe v. United States. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and concerned whether a U.S. Military Academy at West Point student-cadet who alleged they were raped by a fellow cadet can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion from the denial of review.[66]
Court blocks California state's restrictions on in-home religious gatherings[edit]
April 9, 2021: In Tandon v. Newsom, SCOTUS granted an injunction blocking California from enforcing restrictions on in-home religious gatherings that had been imposed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, concluding that because the California law treated both secular and religious in-home gatherings equally, the injunction should be denied.[67]
April 5, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water.[68] The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The petitioner was Jason Small, a Jehovah’s Witness, who claimed that his employer, Memphis Light, Gas & Water, had violated his civil rights. Small had requested to take vacation time in order to attend religious services and his employer denied the request. Small left work and attended the religious services. Small was suspended without pay for two days following this and other incidents.[69] Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to accommodate religious employees so long as the accommodations do not cause "undue hardship." In the case Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of "undue hardship" to be "more than a de minimis cost."[70] Small asked the court to reconsider the Hardison ruling. The court denied the petition for review. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissent from the denial of review and was joined by Justice Alito.[71]
April 5, 2021: SCOTUS vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute and remanded the case back to the 2nd Circuit so that the case could be dismissed as moot due to the change in presidential administrations. When the case was first accepted for arguments, it was named Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute. The case concerned whether President Donald Trump (R) violated the First Amendment when he blocked critics on social media platform Twitter while he was president. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.[72]
Court conducts first in-person conference since spring 2020[edit]
March 19, 2021: The Supreme Court's Public Information Office reported that most of the justices met in person at the court for their regular conference, while some justices participated remotely. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.[73]
Court announces all justices have been vaccinated[edit]
March 5, 2021: The Supreme Court's Public Information Office reported that all nine justices had been vaccinated against COVID-19.[74][75]
March 4, 2021: The Department of Justice advised SCOTUS that the case Wilkinson v. City and County of San Francisco, which concerned sanctuary cities, should be dismissed. The parties agreed and SCOTUS dismissed the petition for a writ of certiorari.[76]
February 22, 2021: SCOTUS denied review in the case Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Commission, which involved legal theory regarding regulatory takings. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.[77]
February 22, 2021: SCOTUS denied review in the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Graffenreid and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party and dismissed the cases as moot. The cases concerned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the mail-in ballot deadline during the 2020 presidential election. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.[77]
February 22, 2021: SCOTUS allowed the release of former President Trump's (R) tax returns to New York prosecutors.[77] For more information on this case, click here.
Court denies request to vacate stay of execution[edit]
February 11, 2021: In the case Dunn v. Smith, SCOTUS ruled that the stay of execution for Alabama man Willie Smith must stay in place unless the state allows Smith to have his pastor with him during his execution, upholding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's ruling, which had blocked Alabama from executing Smith. Justice Clarence Thomas would grant the application. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the denial of the application to vacate the stay of execution.[78]
Court allows deportation of Haitian immigrant[edit]
January 22, 2021: Haitian national Alex Francois entered the United States unlawfully in 1979. He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, psychosis, and schizophrenia. In 2019, an immigration judge granted Francois' application to stay, or halt, his deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the case and the immigration judge reversed its previous ruling and ordered Francois' removal back to Haiti. Francois appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The immigration officials moved to deport Francois before he could submit his opening brief to the court. Francois filed an emergency appeal with SCOTUS to stop his removal to Haiti and the application was denied. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.[79]
Court grants Trump administration request to reinstate medication abortion requirement[edit]
January 12, 2021: SCOTUS granted the Trump administration's request to reinstate the requirement that mifepristone, a pill used to induce abortion, must be picked up from a health care provider in person. The rule had been waived on July 13, 2020, in federal district court in accordance with public health guidelines related to the coronavirus pandemic. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer would deny the application. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.[80]
January 12, 2021: Lisa Montgomery was convicted of murder in 2008. Montgomery was sentenced to death. In January 2021, Montgomery appealed the sentence and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a stay of execution. SCOTUS reversed the D.C. Circuit's stay order. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan said they would have upheld the stay. In a separate case, Montgomery appealed her execution with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the court granted the stay. SCOTUS reversed the 8th Circuit's stay order.[81] On January 12, SCOTUS denied Montgomery's application for a stay of execution and for review in her case.[82][83][84][85] Montgomery was the first woman to be executed by the federal government since 1953.[81]
January 11, 2021: SCOTUS denied review in the case Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, involving "buffer zones" surrounding abortion clinics.[86] Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a statement that he agreed with the court's decision and said that the court should take up the issue in a future case.[86]
Court denies request to stop electoral vote certification[edit]
Court lifts Colorado state’s limits on attendance at religious services[edit]
December 15, 2020: SCOTUS blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing attendance limits on religious gatherings that had been imposed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, concluding that the case was moot because Colorado had already lifted the capacity limits.[88]
December 14, 2020: SCOTUS denied review in the case Schwab v. Fish, which asked the court to consider whether federal law and the U.S. Constitution prohibit the state of Kansas from requiring applicants registering to vote to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the petition.[89]
The court also denied review in the case Box v. Henderson, which presented the following question: "May a State, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, may adopt a biology-based birth-certificate system that includes a rebuttable presumption that a birth mother’s husband — but not wife — is the child’s biological parent?"[89][90]
Court rejects complaint to overturn 2020 presidential election results in four states[edit]
December 11, 2020: In Texas v. Pennsylvania, SCOTUS rejected Texas' application to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The court said Texas did not have legal standing for its complaint and rendered all other related motions as moot.[91][92]
December 10, 2020: Brandon Bernard was an inmate in federal prison who was sentenced to death for his involvement in a carjacking and murder of two youth ministers in Fort Hood, Texas.[93] In an emergency appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit, Bernard petitioned SCOTUS to stay his execution, alleging that the federal government was able to procure the death sentence in his case by withholding exculpatory evidence and knowingly eliciting false testimony against him.[94] The application was presented to the full court by Justice Samuel Alito. The court denied the request to stay the execution. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor would have granted the application and the petition for a writ of certiorari and Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.[94] Bernard was the ninth person to be executed by the federal government since July 2020, when the Trump administration lifted a moratorium on the federal death penalty that was instituted in 2003.[93]
Court denies request to block Pennsylvania from certifying 2020 presidential election results[edit]
December 7, 2020: SCOTUS denied review in the case Kentucky v. White, which asked the court whether a capital defendant can waive a claim of intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia.[96]
Court lifts New York state’s limits on attendance at religious services[edit]
November 25, 2020: In a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS blocked New York State from enforcing attendance limits on religious gatherings that had been imposed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Earlier in November, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues filed lawsuits against executive orders issued in October by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) which limited the number of worshippers to 10 and 25 people in areas classified as red or orange, respectively, due to the number of COVID-19 cases in the immediate area. The five members of the majority were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The majority opinion was not signed, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed separate concurring opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, with Breyer’s opinion joined by justices Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Court reinstates Alabama's prohibition against curbside voting[edit]
October 21, 2020: In a 5-3 vote, SCOTUS reinstated Alabama's prohibition against curbside voting. On Sept. 30, Judge Abdul Kallon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued an original order lifting the state's ban on curbside voting. Kallon was appointed by President Barack Obama (D) in 2010. On Oct. 13, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed Kallon's ruling. The panel included Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Barbara Lagoa. Jordan and Pryor are Obama appointees. Lagoa was appointed by President Donald Trump (R). Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block Kallon's order. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in Merrill's favor. Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. The court majority did not release an opinion explaining its reasoning. Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which Breyer and Kagan joined. The five justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents. The dissenting justices are Democratic appointees.
Court rules Trump administration can stop census data collection on Oct. 15, 2020[edit]
October 13, 2020: SCOTUS blocked an order from a lower court that would have required the Trump administration to continue collecting 2020 census data through the end of October. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that census data gathering should continue, but the administration argued that they needed to conclude the count so they could meet the statutory deadline to report the results to the president by December 31.[98] Justice Sotomayor dissented from the Supreme Court's decision, saying "the harms associated with an inaccurate census are avoidable and intolerable.”[99] The Trump administration shut down the My2020Census.gov website on October 15, 2020.[100]
October 5, 2020: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Davis v. Ermold. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The petitioner was Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis, in her official capacity as county clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples citing her religious beliefs. Davis' decision occurred after the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).[101] Davis was sued by two same-sex couples for refusing to issue the marriage licenses. On appeal to the 6th Circuit, Davis' claim of qualified immunity was rejected.[102][103] Justice Thomas issued a statement on the denial of certiorari and was joined by Justice Alito. Click here to read the statement. Click here for more information on the case Davis v. Ermold.
The 2020-2021 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began on October 5, 2020. The following table provides data on the decisions the court delivered during the 2020-2021 term.
The Washington University in St. Louis Law School (WashU Law) maintains a database of Supreme Court cases. In its database, a case is considered to have formally altered existing Court precedent if at least one of the following applies to the case:[106]
The majority opinion of the Court explicitly references a previous case and overturns its precedent;
A dissent contains persuasive evidence that the opinion of the Court, despite not mentioning overturned precedent, has overruled a previous precedent set by the Court;
If the Court, in a later decision, references an earlier decision that the Court made, and states that said earlier decision was a case overturning precedent, that earlier case will be marked as altering precedent;
Or, the majority opinion mentions precedent and states that it "disapproved" of the decision, or that the precedent is "no longer good law."
The following table details for each term of The Roberts Court how many and which cases were found to formally alter precedent:[107]
SCOTUS precedent alteration during the Roberts Court
Note that the WashU Law database does not state how many precedents were overturned with each decision. As such, a case listed as altering a precedent may have affected multiple precedents.
Additionally, if the Court only distinguished a precedent, it was not classified as a precedent-altering case. Distinguishing a precedent involves clarifying a previous precedent rather than changing it.[106]
The following justice alignment table shows justice agreement rates for non-unanimous rulings during the 2020-2021 term. The data does not include agreements in part.
The highest agreement rate was 77 percent, which applied to the following pairing:
Since 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States released opinions in 1,062 cases, averaging between 70 and 90 cases per year. During that period, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision 751 times (70.7 percent) and affirmed a lower court decision 303 times (28.5 percent). The vast majority of cases heard by the high court originate in a lower court, such as the 13 appellate circuit courts, state-level courts, and federal district courts. Between 2007 and 2020, the high court decided more cases originating from the Ninth Circuit (207) than from any other circuit.
The Supreme Court consists of nine justices. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. As such, the 2020-2021 term began with eight justices on October 5, 2020.
President Donald Trump (R) nominated U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg. Barrett was confirmed by a 52-48 vote of the U.S. Senate on October 26, 2020. For more information on the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy and the process to confirm Judge Barrett, click here.
The court issued decisions in 62 cases during the 2019-2020 term. Delays from the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 caused the court to release opinions into July for the first time since 1996. Click here for more information.
In the 2018-2019 term, SCOTUS agreed to consider 75 cases. The court heard oral argument in 72 cases and decided three cases without argument. Click here for more information.
↑On March 11, the court removed the case from its March 2021 argument calendar following a request from Joe Biden's (D) acting solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar. The case had been scheduled for argument on March 29, 2021.
↑ 49.049.149.249.349.449.549.6Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
↑On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Consequently, same-sex marriage bans have been struck down as unconstitutional and same-sex marriages performed out-of-state must be recognized in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined.