|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-215||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) Whether, assuming arguendo that a plaintiff can state a cognizable constitutional claim under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment with respect to a child’s removal, the qualified immunity question as to a caseworker who removed a child in an investigation mandated by New York Social Services Law § 424 should be whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the child was not at imminent risk of harm or whether a reasonable caseworker in that particular caseworker’s position could have concluded that the child was; (2) whether, assuming arguendo that a plaintiff can state a cognizable constitutional claim under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment with respect to a child’s removal, a caseworker is entitled to qualified immunity from suit where five judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agree that there was an absence of clearly established statutory or constitutional rules of which the caseworker should have been aware when he secured a warrant to search a home and removed children at the direction of his superior; and (3) whether, after removing children from a home under the belief that they were abused, and, thereafter, a state court adjudicates a parent to have been so abusive of his children as to deny him further custody, the parent and the children can sue the caseworker who rescued children from further abuse on either substantive or procedural due process grounds.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 15 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 17, 2012)|
|Sep 12 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2012, for all respondents.|
|Sep 17 2012||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by National Association of Social Workers, et al.|
|Oct 16 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 6, 2012, for all respondents.|
|Nov 6 2012||Brief of respondents Sonny Southerland, Sr. et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 20 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.|
|Dec 17 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 14 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 18, 2013.|
|Jan 22 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by National Association of Social Workers, et al. GRANTED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Jan 22 2013||Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
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.