|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-820||7th Cir.||Nov 1, 2012||Feb 20, 2013||7-2||Kagan||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on February 20, 2013. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 23 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 30, 2012)|
|Jan 25 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 29, 2012.|
|Jan 30 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jan 30 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 30, 2012.|
|Mar 30 2012||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Apr 11 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 27, 2012.|
|Apr 11 2012||Reply of petitioner Roselva Chaidez filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 30 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 5 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 16, 2012.|
|Jun 5 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 14, 2012.|
|Jun 15 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 2 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Roselva Chaidez.|
|Jul 16 2012||Brief of petitioner Roselva Chaidez filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jul 23 2012||Brief amici curiae of Active and Former State and Federal Prosecutors filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||Brief amici curiae of Habeas Scholars and Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, October 30, 2012|
|Aug 2 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 7 2012||Record from U.S.C.A. fo 7th Circuit is electronic.|
|Aug 15 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Illinois is electronic and is available on PACER. There are sealed documents in this record.|
|Sep 14 2012||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 21 2012||Brief amici curiae of New Jersey, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 21 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 15 2012||Reply of petitioner Roselva Chaidez filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2012||RESET FOR ARGUMENT ON Thursday, November 1, 2012.|
|Nov 1 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 20 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.|
|Mar 25 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.