Scott Tooley v. Janet Napolitano, No. 07-5080 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 20, 2009.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT ____________ No. 07-5080 September Term 2008 06cv00306 Filed On: July 1, 2009 Scott Tooley, Appellant v. Janet Ann Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, in her official capacity, et al., Appellees BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Tatel, Circuit Judge, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge ORDER Upon consideration of appellees petition for rehearing, the response thereto, and the supplemental briefs, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be granted. This case is scheduled for oral argument before the above-named panel at 9:30 a.m. on October 8, 2009. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed February 20, 2009, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following briefing schedule apply in this case: Brief and Appendix for Appellant July 24, 2009 Brief for Amicus Curiae for Appellant July 24, 2009 Brief for Appellees August 24, 2009 Reply Brief for Appellant September 8, 2009 Reply Brief for Amicus Curiae for Appellant September 8, 2009 United States Court of Appeals F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT ____________ No. 07-5080 September Term 2008 Appellant must raise all issues and arguments in the opening brief. The court ordinarily will not consider issues and arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. Parties are directed to hand deliver the paper copies of their briefs to the Clerk s office on the date due. All brief and appendices must contain the date the case is scheduled for oral argument at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a). Because the briefing schedule is keyed to oral argument, the court will grant requests for extensions of time limits for briefs only for extraordinarily compelling reasons. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.