|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-10078||Mass.||Not Argued||Mar 21, 2016||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2015|
Holding: The explanation that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts offered for upholding a state law prohibiting the possession of stun guns contradicts Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on March 21, 2016. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 1 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015)|
|Jun 22 2015||Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.|
|Jul 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Jul 13 2015||Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)|
|Aug 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.|
|Aug 11 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.|
|Aug 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.|
|Oct 13 2015||Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.|
|Oct 27 2015||Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.|
|Oct 29 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Nov 16 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.|
|Nov 30 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.|
|Dec 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|Dec 8 2015||Record Requested .|
|Dec 14 2015||Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).|
|Dec 28 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Jan 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.|
|Jan 19 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.|
|Feb 8 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 29 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.|
|Mar 14 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.|
|Mar 21 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).|
|Apr 22 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
|Apr 22 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jun 23 2016||Record from The Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been returned.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...