No. 19-344

Qihui Huang v. Ajit Varadaraj Pai, Chairman of Federal Communications Commission, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2019-09-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: burden-shifting civil-procedure civil-rights compensation constitutional-amendments discrimination due-process retaliation standing supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether lower court could not comply rulings of Supreme Court

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ql. Whether lower court could not comply rulings of Supreme Court on: : (a) “[Respondent’s] silence implies consent, not the opposite—and courts generally behave accordingly, . affirming without further discussion when they agree, not when they disagree,” Kernan. v. Hinojosa, . 2016, 136 S.Ct. 1603; Yist v. Nunnemaker, 1991, 111 S.Ct. 2590; and about 33 U.S. courts complied it. ; (App. 1.7)? (b) McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 109 S.Ct. 1775, (1989). And ; (c) crimes and are therefore especially risky’, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,2006,126 S.Ct. 2405. Q2. Whether anyone or lower court could prevent, relieve, comfort, or assist in prevent Respondent’s | punishment, when he deprived Petitioner of life without due process of law, under Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments? Q3. Whether anyone or lower court could alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal both parties consented important core material facts or objects? Q4. Whether the bodily or personal injured victim could seek compensations at civil court or justice, on ; . ii discriminations and retaliations, which caused by defendant “not acting under color of law, willfully : caused many bodily injuries to Petitioner, because of the race or national origin”?

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-01-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-15
Application (19A793) granted by The Chief Justice to file petition for rehearing in excess of word limits. The petition for rehearing may not exceed 3,507 words.
2019-11-15
Application (19A793) to file petition for rehearing in excess of word limits, submitted to The Chief Justice.
2019-11-15
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-10-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.
2019-09-25
Waiver of right of respondent Pai, Ajit Varadaraj to respond filed.
2019-09-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 17, 2019)
2019-06-07
Application (18A1265) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 13, 2019.
2019-06-04
Application (18A1265) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 15, 2019 to September 13, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Pai, Ajit Varadaraj
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Qihui Huang
Qihui Huang — Petitioner
Qihui Huang — Petitioner