|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-9674||Tex. Crim. App.||Not Argued||Jun 15, 2020||6-3||Per Curiam||OT 2019|
Holding: Andrus demonstrated his counsel's deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, and the case is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas to consider whether Andrus was prejudiced by the inadequacy of counsel.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 15, 2020. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 29 2019||Application (18A1011) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 14, 2019 to July 12, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Apr 03 2019||Application (18A1011) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until June 13, 2019.|
|Jun 12 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2019)|
|Jul 12 2019||Brief amici curiae of James S. Brady, Kendall Coffey, Michael Dettmer, W. Thomas Dillard, Terry Pechota, David Shapiro, and John Smietanka filed.|
|Jul 12 2019||Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Reply of petitioner Terence Andrus filed.|
|Jul 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Aug 14 2019||Record Requested.|
|Oct 04 2019||Record received from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The record is electronic.|
|Oct 10 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.|
|Oct 16 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.|
|Nov 06 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 12 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.|
|Nov 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.|
|Dec 02 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.|
|Dec 09 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.|
|Jan 06 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 21 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.|
|Feb 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.|
|Feb 24 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.|
|Mar 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.|
|Mar 16 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.|
|Mar 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.|
|Mar 30 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/3/2020.|
|Apr 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.|
|Apr 20 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.|
|Apr 27 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.|
|May 11 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.|
|May 18 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.|
|May 22 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.|
|Jun 01 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.|
|Jun 08 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.|
|Jun 15 2020||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for the court to address the prejudice prong of Strickland in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting. (Detached Opinion).|
|Jul 17 2020||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 17 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
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: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.