Carpenter v. United States

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-402	6th Cir.	Nov 29, 2017	Jun 22, 2018	5-4	Roberts	OT 2017

Holding: The government’s acquisition of Timothy Carpenter’s cell-site records from his wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search; the government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring those records.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 22, 2018. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

The Annual: OT2017 in Review (First Mondays, July 9, 2018)
OT2017 #30: "Most Ambitious Crossovers" (First Mondays, June 25, 2018)
Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for sustained cellphone location information (Updated) (Amy Howe, June 22, 2018)
A "view" from the courtroom: "Some good and hard thinking on all sides" (Mark Walsh, June 22, 2018)
OT2017 #9: "Peak SG" (First Mondays, December 11, 2017)
OT2017 #8: "Bespoke but Blank" (First Mondays, December 4, 2017)
Argument analysis: Drawing a line on privacy for cellphone records, but where? (Amy Howe, November 29, 2017)
OT2017 #7: “Keys to a Valet” (First Mondays, November 27, 2017)
Argument preview: The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment (Amy Howe, November 22, 2017)
In Recess #3: "Third Class Webelo" (First Mondays, August 14, 2017)
Symposium: Carpenter and the eyewitness rule (Orin Kerr, August 4, 2017)
Symposium: Millions of tiny constables – Time to set the record straight on the Fourth Amendment and location-data privacy (Alan Butler, August 3, 2017)
Symposium: Will the Fourth Amendment protect 21st-century data? The court confronts the third-party doctrine (Jennifer Lynch, August 2, 2017)
Symposium: A defense of the doctrine (David LaBahn, August 2, 2017)
Symposium: Justices poised to consider, or reconsider, Fourth Amendment doctrines as they assess the scope of privacy in a digital age (John Castellano, August 1, 2017)
Symposium: Granular analysis versus doctrine in Carpenter (Jim Harper, August 1, 2017)
The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English (Amy Howe, July 31, 2017)
Justices to tackle cellphone data case next term (Amy Howe, June 5, 2017)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard, October 31, 2016)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 26 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2016)
Oct 21 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 28, 2016.
Oct 28 2016	Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.
Oct 28 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
Nov 21 2016	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 28, 2016.
Dec 15 2016	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 27, 2016.
Jan 27 2017	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Feb 10 2017	Reply of petitioner Timothy Ivory Carpenter filed.
Feb 15 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.
Feb 23 2017	Rescheduled.
Mar 22 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 17 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 24 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 08 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 05 2017	Petition GRANTED.
Jun 22 2017	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 7, 2017.
Jun 22 2017	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2017.
Jul 11 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jul 12 2017	Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis filed by petitioner Timothy I. Carpenter.
Jul 12 2017	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Timothy I. Carpenter.
Jul 26 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either or neither party received from counsel for the respondent.
Aug 02 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
Aug 07 2017	Joint appendix filed.
Aug 07 2017	Brief of petitioner Timothy I. Carpenter filed.
Aug 11 2017	Brief amici curiae of Data & Society Research Institute and Fifteen scholars of Technology and Society filed.
Aug 11 2017	Brief amici curiae of Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Technology Companies in support of neither party filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Democracy and Technology filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of The Center for Competitive Politics, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Empirical Fourth Amendment Scholars filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the History and Original Meaning of the Fourth Amendment filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Criminal Procedure and Privacy filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of United States Justice Foundation, et al. filed.
Aug 14 2017	Brief amici curiae of Technology Experts filed.
Sep 25 2017	Brief of respondent United States filed.
Sep 29 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Michael Varco filed.
Oct 02 2017	Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted by the Court
Oct 02 2017	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED and Harold Gurewitz, Esquire, of Detroit, Michigan, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Oct 02 2017	Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed.
Oct 02 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Orin S. Kerr filed.
Oct 02 2017	Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.
Oct 06 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Oct 12 2017	CIRCULATED
Oct 18 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
Oct 23 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic.
Oct 24 2017	Reply of petitioner Timothy I. Carpenter filed. (Distributed)
Nov 29 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Nathan F. Wessler, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 22 2018	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jul 24 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog Follow 10,799 477,746

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

6 May 1390382235807846410

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.

Reply on Twitter 1390382235807846410 Retweet on Twitter 1390382235807846410 27 Like on Twitter 1390382235807846410 92 View on Twitter 1390382235807846410

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

5 May 1390024048478986241

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 ...

www.scotusblog.com

Reply on Twitter 1390024048478986241 Retweet on Twitter 1390024048478986241 7 Like on Twitter 1390024048478986241 26 View on Twitter 1390024048478986241

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

5 May 1389950910957342725

Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11

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.

Reply on Twitter 1389950910957342725 Retweet on Twitter 1389950910957342725 276 Like on Twitter 1389950910957342725 1542 View on Twitter 1389950910957342725

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

4 May 1389575617016905730

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.

Reply on Twitter 1389575617016905730 Retweet on Twitter 1389575617016905730 38 Like on Twitter 1389575617016905730 148 View on Twitter 1389575617016905730

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

3 May 1389361216187949069

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 ...

www.scotusblog.com

Reply on Twitter 1389361216187949069 Retweet on Twitter 1389361216187949069 45 Like on Twitter 1389361216187949069 118 View on Twitter 1389361216187949069

'; SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ·

3 May 1389348381458411523

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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A163/177156/20210503155355115_20-A%20Emergency%20Application%20for%20Injunction.pdf

Reply on Twitter 1389348381458411523 Retweet on Twitter 1389348381458411523 56 Like on Twitter 1389348381458411523 88 View on Twitter 1389348381458411523

Breaking News

Carpenter v. United States

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Beyond blogging: The new and improved SCOTUSblog

Court to take up major gun-rights case

Justices doubtful on California donor-disclosure requirement

Justices ponder narrow ruling in student speech case