Descamps v. United States

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Descamps v. United States

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm

Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action – Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-9540	9th Cir.	Jan 7, 2013 Tr.Aud.	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.

Opinion analysis: When is a burglary not a burglary? (Daniel Richman)
Details: Descamps v. United States (Tejinder Singh)
Argument recap: Court struggles with classifying prior burglary convictions across states and courtrooms (Daniel Richman)
Argument preview: When is a burglary a “burglary”? (Daniel Richman)
Court grants two more cases (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case – Amy Howe

Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring – Andrew Hamm

Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action – Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 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
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 48

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

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
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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.

Cases argued	48
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference