Torrez v. United States

Editor's Note :

Torrez v. United States

Symposium: The Supremes put off deciding whether politics violates the Constitution – Hans von Spakovsky

Symposium: The elections clause as a structural constraint on partisan gerrymandering of Congress – Richard Pildes

Opinion analysis: Form order certifying that judge considered appropriate factors was sufficient to explain sentencing modification – Susan Klein

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2018

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: June 2018

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 14, 2018

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Opinions

Orders

Opinions

Conference

Opinions

Orders

Pending petition

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-1189	4th Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Issues: (1) Whether the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States and its progeny applies to determine whether a defendant has “previously been convicted” of a relevant offense; (2) whether prior-conviction aggravators can be satisfied by convictions for conduct that occurred after the capital offense; and (3) whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-site location information, revealing a cell-phone user’s location and movement over a prolonged period of time, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Petition of the day (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Nov 21 2017	Application (17A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 24, 2017 to February 22, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Nov 30 2017	Application (17A567) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until February 22, 2018.
Feb 22 2018	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2018)
Mar 20 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 26, 2018 to April 25, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Mar 21 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 25, 2018.
Apr 10 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 25, 2018 to May 25, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 11 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 25, 2018.
May 15 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 25, 2018 to June 25, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
May 16 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 25, 2018.

Featured Posts

Symposium: The Supremes put off deciding whether politics violates the Constitution – Hans von Spakovsky

Symposium: The elections clause as a structural constraint on partisan gerrymandering of Congress – Richard Pildes

Opinion analysis: Form order certifying that judge considered appropriate factors was sufficient to explain sentencing modification – Susan Klein
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the June 14 conference and opinions in argued cases.
The justices granted certiorari in five cases: Sturgeon v. Frost, Garza v. Idaho, Lorenzo v. SEC, Timbs v. Indiana and Apple v. Pepper.
The justices released their decisions in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, Chavez-Meza v. United States, Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone.
On Thursday, there is a possibility of opinions at 10 a.m. The justices will meet for their June 21 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference will be available soon.
Major Cases
- Trump v. Hawaii
  (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
  Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
- Gill v. Whitford
  Plaintiffs -- Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury -- have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
- Carpenter v. United States
  Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Benisek v. Lamone Because the balance of equities and the public interest tilt against the preliminary injunction motion of plaintiffs claiming that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
- Chavez-Meza v. United States Because the record in this case demonstrates that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge’s explanation for reducing, under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2), Adaucto Chavez-Meza’s sentence to the middle rather than the bottom of the amended Federal Guidelines range was adequate.
- Gill v. Whitford Plaintiffs -- Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury -- have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida The existence of probable cause for Fane Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting does not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States A miscalculation of a Federal Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence in the ordinary case.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Arlene's Flowers Inc. v. Washington (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one's religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause.
- Bearcomesout v. United States Whether the “separate sovereign” concept actually exists when Congress’s plenary power over Indian tribes and the general erosion of any real tribal sovereignty is amplified by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s constitution in such a way that the petitioner’s prosecutions in both tribal and federal court violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
- Biestek v. Berryhill Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 49

Summary reversals 6

Merits cases granted to date 63

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Thomas gives commencement address

On May 12, Justice Clarence Thomas gave the commencement address at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

4
Orders
Opinions

7
Conference

11
Orders
Opinions

14
Conference
Opinions

18
Orders
Opinions

21
Conference
Opinions

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	49
Summary reversals	6
Merits cases granted to date	63