No. 21-866
Realgy, LLC v. Roberta Lindenbaum, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: civil-rights content-based-speech due-process first-amendment free-speech judicial-recusal recusal retroactive-liability severability standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment DueProcess Copyright ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
FirstAmendment DueProcess Copyright ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did this Court sever the government exception retroactively, and if so, is it permissible to reimpose the unequal treatment that this Court held "violates the First Amendment" via the fair notice doctrine?
2. Does 28 U.S.C. § 455 require recusal where a judge's ruling would directly benefit her in contingency fee litigation being prosecuted by a firm that bears the judge's name and which her spouse and son own, in the judge's own circuit?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the retroactive application of the severance of the government-debt exception in Barr v. AAPC violates the First Amendment by re-creating the unequal treatment that the Court deemed unconstitutional
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-22
Reply of petitioner Realgy LLC filed.
2022-02-09
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-01-03
Waiver of right of respondent Roberta Lindenbaum to respond filed.
2021-12-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 9, 2022.
2021-12-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 10, 2022 to February 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 10, 2022)
Attorneys
Realgy LLC
Ryan D Watstein — Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, Petitioner
Roberta Lindenbaum
Leah Marie Nicholls — Public Justice, Respondent
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent