Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

In previous years, the Court released orders the morning after the Court’s “Long Conference.” It has not done so this year. Beginning last Term, the Court consistently considered petitions at least two times before granting certiorari. To the extent that practice continues -- and there is no affirmative evidence the Court intends to drop it -- so we are again doubtful that certiorari will be granted in any cases today.

Lane v. Franks

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
13-483 11th Cir. Apr 28, 2014
Tr.Aud.
Jun 19, 2014 9-0 Sotomayor OT 2013

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Holding: Testimony in a criminal prosecution by a government employee about fraud in the program where he works is protected by the First Amendment; however, the supervisor who fired him in retaliation for that testimony has qualified immunity from suit because it was not "beyond debate" that the employee’s testimony was protected.

Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded., 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 19, 2014.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Oct 15 2013Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 18, 2013)
Nov 14 2013Brief of respondent Steve Franks in opposition filed.
Nov 26 2013Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.
Dec 4 2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.
Jan 13 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014.
Jan 17 2014Petition GRANTED.
Feb 4 2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Feb 11 2014SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 28, 2014
Feb 19 2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Steve Franks.
Feb 20 2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Susan Burrows.
Feb 20 2014Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Edward R. Lane.
Mar 3 2014Brief of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.
Mar 3 2014Brief of respondent Susan Burrow in support of reversal in part and affirmance in part filed.
Mar 5 2014Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.
Mar 7 2014Brief amicus curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Mar 10 2014Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Alabama is electronic. (Not on PACER).
Mar 10 2014CIRCULATED.
Mar 10 2014Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amicus curiae of Government Accountability Project filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed.
Mar 10 2014Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Police Organizations filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Coalition filed. (Distributed)
Mar 10 2014Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2014Brief of respondent Steve Franks filed. (Distributed)
Apr 8 2014Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed.
Apr 9 2014Brief amici curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 11 2014Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)
Apr 17 2014Reply of respondent Susan Burrow filed. (Distributed)
Apr 18 2014Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED.
Apr 22 2014Letter from counsel for petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)
Apr 28 2014Argued. For petitioner: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent Burrow: Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala. For respondent Franks: Mark T. Waggoner, Birmingham, Ala.
Jun 19 2014Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined.
Jul 21 2014JUDGMENT ISSUED
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards