Mulligan v. Nichols

Petition for certiorari denied on May 15, 2017
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
16-1053 9th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2016

Issues: (1) Whether a judge or jury should decide the fact-intensive question of whether government retaliation is severe enough to deter a person of “ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in conduct that is protected by the First Amendment; and (2) whether a heightened standard of proof applies when the government retaliates against a citizen through speech, even when the government acts to deter a citizen from petitioning it for a redress of grievances and the individual suffers severe economic injury because of the retaliation.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Mar 1 2017Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 3, 2017)
Mar 22 2017Waiver of right of respondents City of Los Angeles and John Miller to respond filed.
Mar 31 2017Waiver of right of respondent James Nichols to respond filed.
Apr 3 2017Brief of respondents Los Angeles Police Protective League, Tyler Izen and Eric Rose in opposition filed.
Apr 14 2017Reply of petitioner Brian C. Mulligan filed.
Apr 19 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017Petition DENIED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards