|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-826||6th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2021|
Issue: Whether a federal habeas court may grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the test from Brecht v. Abrahamson is satisfied, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held, or whether the court must also find that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 14 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2021)|
|Dec 21 2020||Application (20A116) to recall and stay mandate, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.|
|Dec 30 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari from January 19, 2021 to February 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 31 2020||Response to application (20A116) requested by Justice Kavanaugh, due Tuesday, January 12, 2021, by 4 p.m. ET.|
|Jan 04 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the time is extended to and including February 18, 2021.|
|Jan 12 2021||Response to application from respondent Ervine Davenport filed.|
|Jan 19 2021||Reply of applicant Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed.|
|Jan 21 2021||Letter of applicant Mike Brown, Acting Warden received.|
|Feb 01 2021||Application (20A116) referred to the Court.|
|Feb 01 2021||Application (20A116) granted by the Court. The application to recall and stay the mandate, presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court, is granted, and the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in case No. 17-2267 is recalled and stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.|
|Feb 18 2021||Brief of respondent Ervine Davenport in opposition filed.|
|Mar 08 2021||Reply of petitioner Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.|
|Mar 29 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.|
|Apr 05 2021||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 20 2021||Motion of Mike Brown, Acting Warden for an extension of time submitted.|
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.