|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.|
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us:
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, May 16 - SCOTUSblog
On Monday, May 16, we will be live blogging as the court releases orders from the May 12 conference and opinio...
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.