|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.|
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Good morning. It’s Monday, and it’s March!
At 9:30 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will release orders from Friday’s conference.
At 10:00, the court will consider an appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges. More from George Quillin & Jeanne Gills.
Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges - SCOTUSblog
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s Unite...
BREAKING: SCOTUS orders California’s Santa Clara County to allow churches to hold indoor services. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent. Here’s the short shadow docket order.
#SCOTUS grants emergency request from northern California churches to allow indoor worship services pending appeal, says result is "clearly dictated" by recent decision. Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf
Just in: SCOTUS opinions expected next Thursday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning, March 1, at 9:30 am, with opinions again on Thursday, March 4, at 10 am. Justices will also hear oral arguments next week, including in Arizona voting dispute on Tuesday.
Apparently all the action today at #SCOTUS was not limited to opinion announcements at 10 am. Major new cert. petition filed today challenging Harvard admissions policy. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1364962610177843210
NEW: Supreme Court asked to outlaw race-based college admissions. Group challenging Harvard admissions policy says it files appeal asking court to over 2003 Grutter decision.
SCOTUS rules against a college student who tried to sue police officers after they mistook him for a criminal suspect and tackled/beat him. The unanimous ruling involves a technical interpretation of the "judgment bar" under the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
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.