Alleyne v. United States

Editor's Note :

Alleyne v. United States

SCOTUS spotlight: Life at OSG – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant four new cases – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices divided in Virginia racial-gerrymandering case – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-9335	4th Cir.	Jan 14, 2013 Tr.Aud.	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.

Reconciling ceilings and floors: Alleyne v. United States (Mike Gottlieb)
Details: Alleyne v. United States (Mike Gottlieb)
Argument recap: Just what does Apprendi mean? (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Back to the sentencing puzzle (Lyle Denniston)
Another revolution on sentencing? (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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

Featured Posts

SCOTUS spotlight: Life at OSG – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant four new cases – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices divided in Virginia racial-gerrymandering case – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 50

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

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
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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.

Cases argued	50
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference