|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-424||D.C. Cir.||Oct 4, 2017||Feb 21, 2018||6-3||Breyer||OT 2017|
Holding: A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on February 21, 2018. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 30 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 31, 2016)|
|Oct 27 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 30, 2016.|
|Nov 16 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 20, 2016.|
|Dec 20 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jan 03 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.|
|Jan 03 2017||Reply of petitioner Rodney Class filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Feb 21 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 15 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 12, 2017.|
|Mar 15 2017||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 17, 2017.|
|May 12 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|May 12 2017||Brief of petitioner Rodney Class filed.|
|May 12 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 19 2017||Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Criminal Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|May 19 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Albert W. Alschuler filed.|
|May 19 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Innocence Project filed.|
|Jul 17 2017||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Jul 19 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.|
|Aug 01 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
|Aug 09 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 16 2017||Reply of petitioner Rodney Class filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 04 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Jessica R. Amunson, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 21 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 26 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.