|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether the first attempt to execute the petitioner was cruel and unusual under the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and if so, whether the appropriate remedy is to bar any further execution attempt on the petitioner; (2) whether a second attempt to execute the petitioner will be a cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process in violation of the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) whether a second attempt to execute the petitioner will violate double jeopardy protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 24 2016||Application (15A1218) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 14, 2016 to August 12, 2016, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|May 25 2016||Application (15A1218) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 12, 2016.|
|Aug 11 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 16, 2016)|
|Sep 16 2016||Brief of respondent Ohio in opposition filed.|
|Oct 3 2016||Reply of petitioner Romell Broom filed.|
|Oct 6 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2016.|
|Oct 25 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2016.|
|Nov 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2016.|
|Nov 14 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.|
|Dec 5 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.|
|Dec 12 2016||Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.|
|Jan 6 2017||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Jan 11 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Feb 21 2017||Rehearing DENIED.|
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.
Cecilia (Cissy) Suyat Marshall, the widow of Thurgood Marshall, died this morning at 94. Here is the court's announcement.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court REJECTS Trump's bid to prevent the House Ways & Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. No noted dissents.
The brief order may end years of litigation over the committee's efforts to review the tax records of Trump and his businesses.
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zr_e1p3.pdf
In a quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS adds no new cases to its docket. The court will not hear Brooks v. Abbott, a challenge to an alleged racial gerrymander of a state senate district in Texas. Here's the full order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zor_7lhn.pdf