|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-8049||5th Cir.||Oct 5, 2016||Feb 22, 2017||6-2||Roberts||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit exceeded the limited scope of analysis for a certificate of appealability, which, by statute, follows a two-step process: an initial determination whether a claim is reasonably debatable, and, if so, an appeal in the normal course; and (2) petitioner Duane Buck has demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington; and (3) the district court's denial of Buck's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) was an abuse of discretion.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on February 22, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 4 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 7, 2016)|
|Mar 2 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 21, 2016.|
|Mar 7 2016||Brief amici curiae of Mark L. Earley, et al. filed.|
|Mar 21 2016||Brief of respondent William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.|
|Apr 4 2016||Reply of petitioner Duane Edward Buck filed.|
|Apr 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 15 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 25 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|Apr 27 2016||Rescheduled.|
|May 9 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 12, 2016.|
|May 11 2016||Rescheduled.|
|May 16 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2016.|
|May 23 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2016.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.|
|Jun 6 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jun 9 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 13 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 5, 2016.|
|Jul 14 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 28, 2016.|
|Jul 19 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jul 28 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 28 2016||Brief of petitioner Duane Edward Buck filed.|
|Jul 29 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Black Law Students Association filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former Prosecutors filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed.|
|Aug 19 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 29 2016||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 28 2016||Reply of petitioner Duane Edward Buck filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 5 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Christina A. Swarns, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.|
|Feb 22 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Mar 27 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.