Carpenter v. United States

Editor's Note :

Carpenter v. United States

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-402	6th Cir.	Nov 29, 2017 Tr.Aud.	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.

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

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.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73