Throughout the term, the Supreme Court will issue orders. These are typically granting or denying petitions for writs of certiorari, of habeas corpus, of mandamus, or of prohibition. The Court will also grant or deny motions to proceed in forma paurperis (to proceed without paying fees), to proceed as a veteran, and motions to file under seal, to name a few.

Throughout the term, I will update this page to include orders of particular interest. Some orders will be added because they are particularly unique or because they relate to a case of interest to the goal of Ladies and the Law.

Interesting Orders from October 7, 2024:

65, ORIG. TEXAS V. NEW MEXICO
The motion of the River Master for fees and expenses is granted, and the River Master is awarded a total of $9,032.48, for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, to be paid equally by the parties.

158, ORIG. ALABAMA V. CALIFORNIA
23-1209 M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS V. TRUSTEES OF THE IAM PENSION
23-1213 MULREADY, GLEN V. PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT
The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.

23-7446 JACOBS V. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

23-7813 RAGIN V. DOTSON, DIR., VA DOC
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

24-5120 STREGE, ADAM V. GMAIL-GOOGLE
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Previous petitions filed by Strege: 08-1189, 19-8329, 20-8233, 23-5444, and 24-5120.