Dalmazzi v. United States

Dalmazzi v. United States

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-961	C.A.A.F.	Jan 16, 2018 Tr.Aud.	Jun 22, 2018	N/A	Per Curiam	OT 2017

Issues: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that the petitioner's challenge to Judge Martin T. Mitchell's continued service on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, after he was nominated and confirmed to the Article I U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, was moot – because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the U.S. Air Force CCA decided her case on the merits, even though she moved for reconsideration after the commission was signed; (2) whether Judge Mitchell's service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), which requires express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a “civil office,” including positions that require “an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”; (3) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).

Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on June 22, 2018.

The Annual: OT2017 in Review (First Mondays)
Opinion analysis: Court rejects “dual-officeholding” challenge to military conviction (Amy Howe)
A "view" from the courtroom: "Some good and hard thinking on all sides" (Mark Walsh)
OT2017 #12: "False Idol" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Justices debate the dual-officeholding ban and jurisdiction over military courts (Amy Howe)
OT2017 #11: "Numbing Effect" (First Mondays)
Argument preview: Justices to consider role of military judges and the dual-officeholding ban (Amy Howe)
OT2017 #7: “Keys to a Valet” (First Mondays)
Justices release January calendar (Amy Howe)
Justices issue orders from "long conference" (UPDATED) (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 01 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2017)
Feb 09 2017	Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Feb 15 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.
Feb 22 2017	Response Requested. (Due March 24, 2017)
Feb 24 2017	Supplemental brief of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi filed.
Mar 16 2017	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 24, 2017.
Apr 19 2017	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 15, 2017.
May 15 2017	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
May 19 2017	Reply of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi filed. VIDED.
Sep 06 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
Sep 28 2017	Petition GRANTED, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 16-1017 and 16-1423 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. In addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the cases in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 under 28 U. S. C. § 1259(3).
Nov 07 2017	Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)
Nov 07 2017	Brief of petitioners filed. VIDED.
Nov 14 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Nov 17 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018. VIDED
Nov 22 2017	CIRCULATED.
Dec 07 2017	Brief of respondent United States filed. VIDED.
Dec 14 2017	Motion of Aditya Bamzai for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Jan 05 2018	Motion of Professor Aditya Bamzai for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for Professor Aditya Bamzai, and 30 minutes for respondent. VIDED
Jan 05 2018	Reply of petitioner Nicole A.Dalmazzi filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 10 2018	Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 16 2018	Argued. For petitioners: Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, Tex. For Professor Aditya Bamzai as amicus curiae: Aditya Bamzai, Charlottesville, VA. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
May 23 2018	Letter of petitioners Nicole A.Dalmazzi, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jun 04 2018	Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jun 22 2018	Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.
Jul 24 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)