August 1793, the Supreme Court postpones its argument session due to a Yellow Fever epidemic in Philadelphia.
August 1798, ditto.
1918 influenza.
March sitting 2020 coronavirus.
At this time no arrangements have been made for rescheduling. It is possible that they hold the March sitting during what is now scheduled to be the April sitting, with the April sitting pushed back to May.
That in turn means we may not get all this terms decisions until the end of July, rather than the end of June.
Time to let the cameras in the court…for telejudiciary.
Any way you can briefly list the important cases that are affected?
I will just paste the list, it isn’t too long:
March Sitting
U.S. v. Briggs, No. 19-108 [Arg: 3.23.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46 [Arg: 3.23.2020]Issue(s): Whether, when the Lanham Act states generic terms may not be registered as trademarks, the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.
U.S. v. Collins, No. 19-184 [Arg: 3.23.2020]Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956 [Arg: 3.24.2020]Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71 [Arg: 3.24.2020]Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 [Arg: 3.25.2020]Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.
U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 3.25.2020]Issue(s): Whether - when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc. , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds - the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.
Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 [Arg: 3.30.2020]Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292 [Arg: 3.30.2020]Issue(s): Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 3.31.2020]Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 3.31.2020]Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 3.31.2020]Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 4.1.2020]Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 4.1.2020]Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.
Thank you as always for keeping us informed.
Your welcome.
There’s no need to postpone it.
Surely all these people have computers and have heard of Go To Meeting or something similar.
Considering the average age of the members and Ginsburg’s poor health overall this is a very sensible decision.
In this day and age though they should have the means available to hold sessions remotely via video feed.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Yeah I think we all are.but do we really expect these 9 to be able to set that stuff up?
No, that’s what contractors are for
That thought never really crossed my mind…and I doubt…theirs’?
Sometimes ya just gotta shake your head.
Which makes you run into the virus coming from that…
Old people and technology…the jokes write themselves.
They had fifty years of cold war planning and twenty since in which it could have been done before this outbreak.
I’m laughing my butt of right now so…which are you…but I think I already know? 
Coulda woulda shoulda… they didnt
No â– â– â– â– Maynard. They should have.
Oh well…they didnt…
