|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1495||10th Cir.||Feb 20, 2018||May 29, 2018||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Issue: Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial.
Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on May 29, 2018. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 10 2017||Application (16A996) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 30, 2017 to June 29, 2017, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Apr 21 2017||Application (16A996) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until June 29, 2017.|
|Jun 13 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 17, 2017)|
|Jun 29 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 16, 2017.|
|Aug 16 2017||Brief of respondent Matthew Jack D. Vogt in opposition filed.|
|Aug 23 2017||Reply of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed.|
|Aug 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|Sep 28 2017||Petition GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Oct 02 2017||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner.|
|Oct 31 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, City of Hays, Kansas|
|Nov 02 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Matthew Jack D. Vogt.|
|Nov 06 2017||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Nov 13 2017||Brief of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed.|
|Nov 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of The State of Kansas and 12 Other States filed.|
|Nov 20 2017||Brief amicus curiae of State and Local Government Employers filed.|
|Nov 20 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Nov 20 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 11 2017||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 13 2017||Brief of respondent Matthew Jack D. Vogt filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 20, 2018|
|Dec 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of Teachers filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Procedure Scholars filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Fraternal Order of Police filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union filed.|
|Jan 05 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 08 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Jan 08 2018||Reply of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Jan 12 2018||The entire record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Feb 01 2018||The record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Kansas is electronic.|
|Feb 20 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Toby J. Heytens, Charlottesville, Va.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.|
|May 29 2018||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jul 02 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.