|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-6943||5th Cir.||Dec 4, 2019||Jun 1, 2020||7-2||Kagan||OT 2019|
Holding: A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b).
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 1, 2020. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 17 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)|
|Jan 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Jan 28 2019||Response Requested. (Due February 27, 2019)|
|Feb 27 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2019 to April 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 01 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part, and the time is extended to and including April 10, 2019.|
|Mar 29 2019||Letter from counsel for petitioner received.|
|Apr 10 2019||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ in opposition filed.|
|Apr 24 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.|
|Apr 24 2019||Reply of petitioner Gregory Dean Banister filed. (Distributed)|
|May 06 2019||Rescheduled.|
|May 29 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 24 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis GRANTED, and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).|
|Jul 10 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 17 2019||Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 26, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 18, 2019.|
|Aug 26 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 26 2019||Brief of petitioner Gregory Dean Banister filed.|
|Aug 30 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Sep 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors with Expertise in Habeas Corpus and Civil Procedure filed.|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 4, 2019.|
|Oct 18 2019||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ filed.|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 23 2019||The Record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 25 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of States of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 12 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 18 2019||Reply of petitioner Gregory Dean Banister filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 04 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Brian T. Burgess, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Kyle D. Hawkins, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Benjamin Snyder, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 01 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 06 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.
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.