|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-9540||9th Cir.||Jan 7, 2013||Jun 20, 2013||8-1||Kagan||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the NACDL as amicus curiae in this case.
Holding: Sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach to a federal defendant when the crime of which the defendant was previously convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2013. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 19 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 27, 2012)|
|Apr 18 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 29, 2012.|
|May 21 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including June 28, 2012.|
|Jun 28 2012||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jul 12 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Jul 17 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2012||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Sep 11 2012||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps.|
|Oct 3 2012||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 3, 2012.|
|Oct 18 2012||Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps.|
|Oct 24 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Volume 1 of 2) (Statement of costs filed)|
|Oct 24 2012||Brief of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed.|
|Oct 29 2012||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Dan B. Johnson, Esquire, of Spokane, Washington, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner.|
|Oct 29 2012||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.|
|Oct 31 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 7, 2013.|
|Oct 31 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Nov 16 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 26 2012||Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.|
|Dec 3 2012||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 5 2012||Record recieved from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 box).|
|Dec 5 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Washingon is electronic. There is 1 sealed envelope received from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit) that is a part of U.S.D.C. record.|
|Dec 27 2012||Reply of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 7 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Dan B. Johnson, Spokane, Wash. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Benjamin J. Horwich, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 20 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kenendy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 3 2013||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Aug 8 2013||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Aug 30 2013||Rehearing DENIED.|
|Aug 30 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Sep 4 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit.|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.