Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) When plaintiffs have established their ongoing
injuries are traceable to defendants' policies and
practices, does Article III require a particularized
factual determination of whether a federal agency
or official will redress plaintiffs' injuries following
a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves
the constitutional controversy?
(2) Whether exceptions exist to the three demanding
conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney
v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia ,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When plaintiffs have established ongoing injuries traceable to defendants' policies, does Article III require a particularized factual determination of redressability following a declaratory judgment?
2025-02-26
Reply of petitioners Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-02-26
Reply of Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, et al. submitted.
2025-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-02-12
Brief of respondents United States, et al. in opposition filed.
2025-02-12
Brief of United States, et al. in opposition submitted.
2025-01-13
Brief amici curiae of Public Justice And Montana Trial Lawyers Association filed.
2025-01-13
Brief amici curiae of Public Justice, et al. filed.
2025-01-13
Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.
2025-01-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 12, 2025.
2025-01-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2025 to February 12, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-01-07
Motion of United States, et al. for an extension of time submitted.
2024-12-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 13, 2025)
2024-09-16
Application (24A267) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 9, 2024.
2024-09-12
Application (24A267) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 10, 2024 to December 9, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.