|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.