No. 23-1135
Saline Parents, et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Tags: chilling-effect domestic-terrorism first-amendment free-speech government-surveillance reputational-harm standing
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Do Petitioners, who were the intended targets of the challenged policy directive, have standing to advance this ripe legal challenge when they have alleged a chilling effect on their right to freedom of speech and reputational harm caused by the directive?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Standing-to-challenge-government-policy
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-08-08
Reply of Saline Parents, et al. submitted.
2024-08-08
Reply of petitioners Saline Parents, et al. filed.
2024-07-31
Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General in opposition filed.
2024-06-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 31, 2024.
2024-06-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-05-31
Response Requested. (Due July 1, 2024)
2024-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-20
Waiver of right of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General to respond filed.
2024-04-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 20, 2024)
Attorneys
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Saline Parents, et al.
Robert Joseph Muise — American Freedom Law Center, Petitioner