|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1493||4th Cir.||Jan 22, 2014||Jun 16, 2014||5-4||Kagan||OT 2013|
Holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 16, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 2 2013||Application (12A955) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 23, 2013 to June 22, 2013, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Apr 4 2013||Application (12A955) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 21, 2013.|
|Jun 21 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 25, 2013)|
|Jul 19 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 26, 2013.|
|Jul 25 2013||Brief amici curiae of Steve Stockman, et al. filed.|
|Jul 25 2013||Brief amicus curiae of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed.|
|Aug 26 2013||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Sep 9 2013||Reply of petitioner Bruce James Abramski, Jr. filed.|
|Sep 11 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013.|
|Oct 15 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 24 2013||Petitioner will file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits on or before November 26, 2013.|
|Oct 24 2013||Respondent will file respondent's brief on the merits on or before December 24, 2013.|
|Nov 4 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 22, 2014.|
|Nov 4 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 14 2013||Record received from U.S.D.C. Western District of Virginia. The record is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Nov 18 2013||Record received from the U. S. C. A. Fourth Circuit - (1 envelope). A portion of the record is electronic (Not on PACER). There are also sealed documents in this record.|
|Nov 26 2013||Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Nov 26 2013||Brief of petitioner Bruce James Abramski, Jr. filed.|
|Dec 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Steve Stockman, et al. filed.|
|Dec 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of Robert Snellings and Ulysses Grant Early, IV filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 4 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 30 2013||Brief amici curiae of States of Hawaii, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 30 2013||Brief amici curiae of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 30 2013||Brief amicus curiae of City of New York filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 13 2014||Reply of petitioner Bruce James Abramski, Jr. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Richard D. Dietz, Winston Salem, N. C. For respondent: Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 16 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 18 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 22 2014||Record returned for U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Who you calling “shrinking”? — the shadow docket
With #SCOTUS’s shrinking docket, we have to wonder if @SCOTUSblog will become a bi-monthly publication.
The Supreme Court will take up voting rights this morning.
Oral argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Justices to consider whether Arizona’s voting rules discriminate against minorities - SCOTUSblog
The 2020 elections may be over, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a pair of voting-rights ...
Tomorrow morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of voting rights cases involving Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits policies or laws that result in racial discrimination in voting.
Missed the morning orders? @AHoweBlogger's got you covered. Read about the new grants including a review of Puerto Rico’s eligibility for a federal benefits program. Plus, she's got an overview of several high-profile petitions still under consideration.
Court will review Puerto Rico’s eligibility for federal benefits program - SCOTUSblog
The court on Monday morning issued orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Feb. 26. The justic...
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.