Davis v. Ayala

Editor's Note :

Davis v. Ayala

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 27, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-1428	9th Cir.	Mar 3, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jun 18, 2015	5-4	Alito	OT 2014

Holding: Any federal constitutional error that may have occurred by excluding the attorney for a defendant in a capital murder trial from part of the Batson hearing was harmless.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 18, 2015. Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.

A “view” from the Courtroom: A bonus day for opinions (Mark Walsh)
Opinion analysis: How habeas courts should assess harmless error in a procedural Batson challenge (Steve Vladeck)
Argument analysis: AEDPA deference, Brecht deference, and a Lackey tangent in a California capital case (Steve Vladeck)
Argument preview: A Ninth Circuit capital habeas case with a complicated doctrinal twist (Steve Vladeck)
Privacy of hotel guest lists at issue (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
May 27 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 30, 2014)
Jun 18 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 30, 2014.
Jul 21 2014	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 13, 2014.
Aug 13 2014	Brief of respondent Hector Ayala in opposition filed.
Aug 26 2014	Reply of petitioner Kevin Chappell, Warden filed.
Aug 27 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Oct 6 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.
Oct 14 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.
Oct 20 2014	Petition GRANTED In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the court of appeals properly applied the standard articulated in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619 (1993)."
Oct 30 2014	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 11, 2014.
Oct 30 2014	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 20, 2015.
Dec 9 2014	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Dec 9 2014	Brief of petitioner Kevin Chappell, Warden filed.
Dec 22 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Dec 22 2014	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 22 2014	Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Jan 7 2015	CIRCULATED.
Jan 9 2015	Record received from U.S.D.C. Southern District of California, (12 Boxes, one box of the record is SEALED)
Jan 20 2015	Brief of respondent Hector Ayala filed. (Distributed)
Feb 12 2015	Letter from counsel for the petitioner regarding change in party name.
Feb 18 2015	Reply of petitioner Ron Davis, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)
Mar 3 2015	Argued. For petitioner: Robin Urbanski, California Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, Cal. For respondent: Anthony J. Dain, San Diego, Cal.
Jun 18 2015	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Jul 13 2015	Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jul 16 2015	DISTRIBUTED.
Aug 10 2015	Rehearing DENIED.
Aug 10 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Aug 11 2015	Records from the 9th Circuit and from U.S.D.C. Southern District of California has been returned.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in three argued cases: United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will release its final opinions for the term.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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
  Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- 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.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Kisor v. Wilkie Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas Tennessee’s 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the commerce clause and is not saved by the 21st Amendment.
- United States v. Haymond The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s judgment – that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 66

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

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.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	66
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions

27
Opinions
Conference