|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-546||6th Cir.||Nov 9, 2020||Feb 25, 2021||9-0||Thomas||OT 2020|
Holding: The district court's dismissal of King's claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act triggered the "judgment bar" in 28 U.S.C. § 2676 that precludes him from raising separate claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents on appeal.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on February 25, 2021.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 16 2019||Application (19A184) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 26, 2019 to September 25, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Aug 18 2019||Application (19A184) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until September 25, 2019.|
|Sep 13 2019||Application (19A184) to extend further the time from September 25, 2019 to October 25, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Sep 16 2019||Application (19A184) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until October 25, 2019.|
|Oct 25 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 27, 2019)|
|Nov 06 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 27, 2019 to January 22, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 08 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 22, 2020.|
|Jan 21 2020||Brief of respondent James King in opposition filed.|
|Feb 05 2020||Reply of petitioners Douglas Brownback, et al. filed.|
|Feb 26 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.|
|Mar 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.|
|Mar 30 2020||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 09 2020||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Apr 21 2020||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 19, 2020. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 24, 2020.|
|Jun 19 2020||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jun 19 2020||Brief of petitioners Douglas Brownback, et al. filed.|
|Aug 19 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 9, 2020.|
|Aug 24 2020||Brief of respondent James King filed.|
|Aug 28 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Aug 31 2020||Amicus brief of Members of Congress not accepted for filing. (Corrected PDF to be submitted - August 31, 2020)|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union et al filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and National Police Accountability Project filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed.|
|Aug 31 2020||Amicus brief of Professors James Pfander, Gregory Sisk & Zachary Clopton not accepted for filing. (September 10, 2020 - corrected brief to be submitted).|
|Aug 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of Professors James Pfander, Gregory Sisk & Zachary Clopton filed. (9/11/2020) (Distributed)|
|Sep 01 2020||The record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronically filed.|
|Sep 02 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 23 2020||Reply of petitioners Douglas Brownback, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 09 2020||Argued. For petitioners: Michael R. Huston, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Patrick M. Jaicomo, Arlington, Va.|
|Feb 25 2021||Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Mar 29 2021||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
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.