|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-6219||5th Cir.||Apr 24, 2017||Jun 26, 2017||5-4||Thomas||OT 2016|
Holding: The ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel does not provide cause to excuse the procedural default of ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 26, 2017. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 22 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 28, 2016)|
|Oct 26 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 28, 2016.|
|Nov 23 2016||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.|
|Dec 7 2016||Reply of petitioner Erick Daniel Davila filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 8 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 13 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 23 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Erick Daniel Davila.|
|Feb 8 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.|
|Feb 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 24, 2017|
|Feb 24 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Feb 27 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED and Seth Kretzer, Esquire, of Houston, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Feb 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of petitioner Erick Daniel Davila filed.|
|Mar 2 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Mar 3 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the Respondent.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 29 2017||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Criminal Justices Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 5 2017||Brief amici curiae of Nevada, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 5 2017||Motion of Nevada, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 13 2017||Motion of Nevada, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Apr 17 2017||Reply of petitioner Erick Daniel Davila filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 24 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Seth Kretzer, Houston, Tex. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.|
|Jun 26 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 28 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.