|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-679||11th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense (placing the burden on the defendant to raise and prove it) or whether it is a pleading requirement (placing the burden on a plaintiff to plead its absence); (2) whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 16 2019||Application (19A309) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 8, 2019 to December 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Sep 20 2019||Application (19A309) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 6, 2019.|
|Nov 22 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 26, 2019)|
|Dec 06 2019||Waiver of right of respondent Michael Vickers to respond filed.|
|Dec 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Dec 20 2019||Brief amici curiae of Cross-Ideological Groups Dedicated to Ensuring Official Accountability, Restoring the Public's Trust in Law Enforcement, and Promoting the Rule of Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2020||Response Requested. (Due February 7, 2020)|
|Jan 14 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 7, 2020 to March 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 16 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 9, 2020.|
|Feb 18 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 9, 2020 to April 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 19 2020||Response to motion from petitioner Amy Corbitt filed.|
|Feb 20 2020||Reply in support of motion filed.|
|Feb 24 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 8, 2020.|
|Apr 03 2020||Brief of respondent Michael Vickers in opposition filed.|
|Apr 21 2020||Reply of petitioner Amy Corbitt filed.|
|Apr 28 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.|
|May 13 2020||Rescheduled.|
|May 18 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.|
|May 22 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.|
|Jun 01 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.|
|Jun 08 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.|
|Jun 15 2020||Petition DENIED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.