|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-701||Tex. Crim. App.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether the Constitution prevents a state from allowing a defendant to represent himself in a capital case when the defendant is mentally competent to waive counsel but is not mentally competent to conduct trial proceedings in his capital trial; (2) whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state of Texas from sentencing petitioner James Calvert to death on a finding of future dangerousness based in substantial part on graphic testimony and evidence about an attack on a prison official committed by another inmate in another prison at another time, having no connection to Calvert; and (3) whether the constitutional violation resulting from the trial court’s direction to administer a 50,000- volt electric shock to Calvert during his trial to “enforce decorum” because Calvert failed to stand when responding to a question from the court constitutes structural error.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 16 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2020)|
|Dec 10 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 21, 2020 to January 20, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 11 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 20, 2021.|
|Jan 12 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 20, 2021 to February 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 13 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 19, 2021.|
|Feb 19 2021||Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.|
|Mar 09 2021||Reply of petitioner James Calvert filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.|
|Mar 19 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 29 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.|
|Mar 29 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 12 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.|
|Apr 12 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 19 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.|
|Apr 21 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 26 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.|
|Apr 27 2021||Rescheduled.|
|May 10 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.|
|May 17 2021||Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached opinion)|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.