|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-369||9th Cir.||Mar 22, 2017||May 30, 2017||8-0||Alito||OT 2016|
Holding: The Fourth Amendment provides no basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's "provocation rule," which makes an officer's otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if (1) the officer "intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation" and (2) "the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation."
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 30, 2017. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 16 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 24, 2016)|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief of respondents Angel Mendez, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 3 2016||Reply of petitioners Los Angeles County, California, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.|
|Dec 2 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 13 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jan 17 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief of petitioners Los Angeles County, California, et al. filed.|
|Jan 23 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association filed.|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed.|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Major County Sheriffs' Association filed.|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amici curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.|
|Jan 25 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 3 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 22, 2017|
|Feb 3 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 6 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Feb 16 2017||Brief of respondents Angel Mendez, and Jennifer Lynn Garcia filed.|
|Feb 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 22 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Georgetown University Law Center Chapter of the Black Law Students Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Police Accountability Project filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2017||Brief amici curiae The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Southern California filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 6 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 10 2017||Reply of petitioners County of Los Angeles, California, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 22 2017||Argued. For petitioners: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Leonard Feldman, Seattle, Wash.|
|May 30 2017||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Gorsuch, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.|
|Jul 3 2017||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.