Sprint Communications Company v. Jacobs
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-815 | 8th Cir. | Nov 5, 2013 | Dec 10, 2013 | 9-0 | Ginsburg | OT 2013 |
Holding: Sprint"s lawsuit against members of the Iowa Utilities Board, seeking a declaration that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted a decision by the IUB holding that intrastate fees applied to long-distance Voice over Internet Protocol calls, does not fall within any of the three classes of exceptional cases for which Younger abstention is appropriate; federal court abstention is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on December 10, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Defining the limits of Younger (Scott Dodson, December 10, 2013)
- Argument analysis: Pulling Younger back? (Scott Dodson, November 6, 2013)
- Argument preview The scope of the Younger doctrine (Scott Dodson, October 28, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 11/14/2012 | Application (12A499) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 3, 2012 to January 17, 2013, submitted to Justice Alito. |
| 11/19/2012 | Application (12A499) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 2, 2013. |
| 01/02/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2013) |
| 01/02/2013 | Appendix of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed. |
| 01/24/2013 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 6, 2013. |
| 03/06/2013 | Brief of respondents Elizabeth S. Jacobs, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 03/19/2013 | Reply of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed. |
| 03/20/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013. |
| 04/15/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 04/30/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 28, 2013. |
| 04/30/2013 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2013. |
| 06/25/2013 | Blanket consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. |
| 06/28/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| 06/28/2013 | Brief of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, L.P. filed. |
| 07/03/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| 07/05/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association filed. |
| 07/05/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. |
| 07/31/2013 | Updated Rule 29.6 disclosure received from counsel for the petitioner. (Distributed) |
| 08/19/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 08/20/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. |
| 08/27/2013 | Brief of respondents Elizabeth S. Jacobs, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/03/2013 | Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/03/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Michigan and 21 Other States filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/03/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/13/2013 | Proposal of counsel for respondents to lodge copies of the "Complaint and Request For Emergency Relief" filed with the Iowa Utilities Board. |
| 09/13/2013 | Record received from U.S.C.A. for 8th Circuit. (1 box) |
| 09/13/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of Iowa is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 09/26/2013 | Reply of petitioner Sprint Communications Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/04/2013 | Joint supplemental brief filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/05/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: Timothy J. Simeone, Washington, D. C. For respondents: David J. Lynch, Des Moines, Iowa. |
| 12/10/2013 | Judgment REVERSED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 01/13/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 01/15/2014 | Record from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit has been returned. |
Issue: Whether the Eighth Circuit erred by concluding that”Younger”abstention is warranted not only when there is a related state proceeding that is “coercive” but also when there is a related state proceeding that is, instead, “remedial.”