Bernard v. Minnesota

Editor's Note :

Bernard v. Minnesota

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-1470	Minn.	Apr 20, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Jun 23, 2016	6-2	Alito	OT 2015

Holding: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 23, 2016. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

A “view” from the Courtroom: Alito dissents on affirmative action, a deadlock on immigration, and more (Mark Walsh)
Opinion analysis: States prevail on breath (but not blood) tests without a warrant (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Criminal penalties for refusal to take a Breathalyzer test in jeopardy? (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Warrantless DUI tests and the Fourth Amendment (Amy Howe)
Court to rule on drunk-driving tests (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jun 15 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 16, 2015)
Jul 16 2015	Brief of respondent Minnesota in opposition filed.
Aug 5 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Aug 5 2015	Reply of petitioner William Robert Bernard, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 25 2015	Rescheduled.
Nov 17 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Nov 30 2015	Supplemental brief of petitioner William Robert Bernard, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 7 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 11 2015	Petition GRANTED The petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 14-1468 and No. 14-1507 are granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Jan 26 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including February 4, 2016. VIDED
Jan 26 2016	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including March 15, 2016. VIDED
Feb 4 2016	Brief of petitioner William Robert Bernard, Jr. filed.
Feb 4 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Danny Birchfield. VIDED.
Feb 8 2016	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Indiana Tech Law School Amicus Project in support of neither party. VIDED.
Feb 9 2016	Brief amici curiae of Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
Feb 9 2016	Brief amicus curiae of DUI Defense Lawyers Association filed. VIDED.
Feb 11 2016	Brief amici curiae of Downsize DC Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 11 2016	Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed. VIDED.
Feb 11 2016	Brief amici curiae of The National College for DUI Defense, and The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. VIDED.
Feb 29 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. VIDED
Feb 29 2016	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Indiana Tech Law School Amicus Project in support of neither party GRANTED. VIDED
Mar 4 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 20, 2016. VIDED
Mar 14 2016	Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Mar 15 2016	DISTRIBUTED.
Mar 15 2016	Brief of respondent Minnesota filed. (Distributed)
Mar 16 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The California District Attorneys Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 22 2016	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 22 2016	Brief amici curiae of New Jersey and Seventeen Other States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 22 2016	Brief amici curiae of The Council of State Governments, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 22 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Mar 22 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 22 2016	Brief amici curiae of The National District Attorneys Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 23 2016	Record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota is electronic.
Apr 4 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement of time for oral argument, and for divided argument GRANTED. and the time is divided as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for respondent North Dakota, 10 minutes for respondent Minnesota, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General. VIDED.
Apr 13 2016	Reply of petitioner William Robert Bernard, Jr. filed. (Distributed.)
Apr 20 2016	Argued. For petitioners: Charles A. Rothfeld, Washington, D. C. For respondents in Nos. 14-1468 & 14-1507: Thomas R. McCarthy, Arlington, Va. For respondent in 14-1470: Kathryn Keena, Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Hastings, Minn. For United States as amicus curiae in support of respondents: Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
Jun 23 2016	Judgment in No. 14-1468 REVERSED and case REMANDED. Judgment in No. 14-1470 AFFIRMED. Judgment in No. 14-1507 VACATED AND REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Jul 25 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED
Jul 25 2016	MANDATE ISSUED

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh
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 February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 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
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 44

Cases decided 11

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

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
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	44
Cases decided	11
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74