|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-9335||4th Cir.||Jan 14, 2013||Jun 17, 2013||5-4||Thomas||OT 2012|
Holding: Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to the jury.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 17, 2013. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Scalia and Kennedy joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 14 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 16, 2012)|
|Mar 22 2012||Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.|
|Mar 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2012.|
|Apr 10 2012||Response Requested . (Due May 10, 2012)|
|Apr 10 2012||Record Requested .|
|Apr 16 2012||Record received from US Court of Appeals for the the Fourth Circuit (one envelope containing joint appendices; including one sealed envelope). Remaining record is on PACER.|
|Apr 16 2012||Record of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Richmond) on PACER.|
|May 1 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 11, 2012.|
|Jun 11 2012||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jun 20 2012||Reply of petitioner Allen Ryan Alleyne filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 21 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Oct 1 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 14, 2013.|
|Nov 19 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 19 2012||Brief of petitioner Allen Ryan Alleyne filed.|
|Nov 21 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Nov 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of New York Council of Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Nov 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law filed.|
|Nov 26 2012||Brief amici curiae of Sentencing Project, and The American Civil Liberties Union filed.|
|Nov 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Families Against Mandatory Minimums filed.|
|Dec 6 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 26 2012||Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 7 2013||Reply of petitioner Allen Ryan Alleyne filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 14 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, VA. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 17 2013||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED Thomas, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III-B, III-C, and IV, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respet to Parts II and III-A, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 19 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
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.