Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
In Re William B. Jolley
Paid petition
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate: the model weighted this down for a self-represented petitioner.
Question presented
Is 29 C.F.R. f 1614 constitutional where Defendant HUD contends that the results of Investigation made under 29 C.F.R. ^1 1614 (HUD-00037-2019) has no value in the federal court suit where HUD-00037-2019 shows that HUD discriminated on the basis of Age and Disability according to the interpretation rules of 29 C.F.R. 1614; and where f 1614, used by all the federal agencies, has no provisions for compliance with the due process guarantee of the Constitution (No impartial tribunal, etc.); and If 1614 is suppose to cover discrimination in employment applications, employment, etc.; all “discrimination” types covered being statutory rights.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
William B. Jolley
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Case
Subject area
Civil Rights (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Linked docket
23M81
Order
Order list, June 17, 2024 · Mandamus denied
Proceedings
- Jun 17 2024Petition DENIED.
- May 28 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
- May 20 2024Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Apr 22 2024Motion (23M81) for leave to proceed as a veteran granted.
- Apr 03 2024MOTION (23M81) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.
- Mar 25 2024Motion (23M81) for leave to proceed as a veteran filed.
- Mar 25 2024Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition filed. (Response due May 22, 2024)