|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-43||10th Cir. -||Feb 21, 2018||May 14, 2018||8-0||Breyer||OT 2017|
Holding: Wiretap orders authorized by a judge for the federal district of Kansas in the government’s investigation of a suspected Kansas drug distribution ring were not facially insufficient, since they were not lacking any information that the wiretap statute required them to include and since the challenged language authorizing interception outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction was surplus.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 14, 2018. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 03 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2017)|
|Aug 02 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 6, 2017.|
|Sep 06 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Sep 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Sep 20 2017||Reply of petitioner Los R. Dahda filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 16 2017||Petition GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Nov 15 2017||Motion for an extension of time filed.|
|Nov 16 2017||Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including January 5, 2018.|
|Nov 28 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Los R. Dahda|
|Nov 30 2017||Brief of petitioner Los R. Dahda filed.|
|Nov 30 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 30 2017||Motion to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Los R. Dahda.|
|Dec 07 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Dec 07 2017||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Dec 07 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 21, 2018|
|Jan 05 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 05 2018||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2018.|
|Jan 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Jan 16 2018||Record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER with the exception of the pleadings enclosed in 1 box.|
|Jan 22 2018||Motion to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Feb 05 2018||Reply of petitioner Los R. Dahda filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|May 14 2018||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, 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 the cases.|
|Jun 15 2018||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.