|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-825||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Jun 1, 2015||N/A||N/A||OT 2014|
Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to this Court's decision in Demore v. Kim, that under United States v. Salerno, a denial of bail is permissible “only” after individualized assessments of flight risk or future dangerousness, thereby barring categorical denials of bail such as Arizona's Proposition 100 and calling into question categorical bans on bail in non-capital cases that exist in seventeen other states (and perhaps even calling into question categorical bans on bail in capital cases that exist in an additional twenty-two states); (2) whether, when adopting a categorical ban on bail for illegal aliens charged with serious felonies, a state may rely on logical assumptions, testimonial evidence of front-line prosecutors, and other anecdotal evidence that is in conformity with the empirical evidence of heightened flight risk by those unlawfully present in this country contained in studies conducted elsewhere, similar to what this Court has approved in analogous contexts, see City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., or whether the state must conduct its own empirical analysis that is both jurisdiction- and category-specific in order to meet the requirements of Due Process; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Proposition 100 was facially unconstitutional, contrary to Salerno's requirement that a statute is facially invalid only if “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,” because among those categorically denied bail by Arizona’s Proposition, 100 are individuals charged with capital crimes, whom the Ninth Circuit recognized could categorically be denied bail.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 13 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 13, 2015)|
|Jan 29 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 16, 2015.|
|Feb 13 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Mar 13 2015||Brief of respondents Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, and Isaac Castro-Armenta. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 1 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 17, 2015.|
|Apr 6 2015||Reply of petitioners County of Maricopa, Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 20 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015.|
|Apr 27 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.|
|May 4 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 14, 2015.|
|May 18 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 21, 2015.|
|May 26 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 28, 2015.|
|Jun 1 2015||Petition DENIED. Justice Alito dissents. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
Released today: annual financial disclosures for eight of the nine justices. Key takeaways: substantial book-royalty income for Sotomayor and Gorsuch; reduced travel reimbursements across the board during the pandemic.
Full story from @AHoweBlogger:
Less travel, plenty of royalties for justices in 2020 - SCOTUSblog
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in an unusual source: the justices’ 2020 financial disclosur...
Opinions next week — Monday and Thursday at 10:00 a.m. ET.
With 21 opinions to go, #SCOTUS enters the home stretch: Opinions expected on Monday and Thursday again next week, at 10 am Eastern both days. Court will also issue orders from today's conference at 9:30 am on Monday, June 14.
NEW: SCOTUS rules against federal government's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Court says a felony involving recklessness does not satisfy the law's "use of physical force" element and thus does not trigger the law's "violent felony" mandatory minimum sentence.
It's a @SCOTUSblog kind of morning
R.I.P. Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. His influence on SCOTUS and American law was enormous.
The Supreme Court will release opinion(s?) at 10:00 a.m. ET. We’ll fire up the live blog at 9:45.
There are 22 outstanding opinions in argued cases including the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ+ / religious liberty, voting rights, and student speech. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-10/
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.