|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-6230||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2012|
Issue: (1) For purposes of federal habeas review, has the U.S. Supreme Court clearly established the rule that due process prohibits a state court judge from taking into account his own religious beliefs in sentencing a defendant? (2) Did the state court judge violate petitioners’ due process rights when the judge told petitioners, following their guilty plea to the robbery at a church, that they had stolen God’s money intended for the establishment of a religious kingdom on earth and then sentenced each of them to 53 to 71 years? (3) Did the sentences of petitioners, who were adolescents without any serious prior record and did not harm anyone in the robbery, violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 13 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 15, 2012)|
|Sep 20 2012||Waiver of right of respondents Alvin William Keller, Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, et al. to respond filed.|
|Oct 4 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 22 2012||Response Requested . (Due November 21, 2012)|
|Nov 9 2012||Brief of respondents Alvin William Keller, Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 21 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.|
|Nov 27 2012||Record Requested .|
|Nov 30 2012||Record received from the U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Asheville) (Electronically)|
|Dec 3 2012||Record received from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1 folder).|
|Dec 6 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 14 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 18, 2013.|
|Jan 22 2013||Petition DENIED.|
|Jun 7 2013||Record returned to U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1 folder).|
The Senate has advanced Biden's nomination of Elizabeth Prelogar to be solicitor general, the top lawyer who represents the administration at the Supreme Court.
Final confirmation vote expected tomorrow. Just in time for Prelogar to argue on Monday in the Texas abortion case?
Invoked, 53-42: Motion to invoke cloture on Executive Cal. #413 Elizabeth Prelogar to be Solicitor General of the United States.
It's the Great Pumpkin, Chief Justice Roberts.
Our new homepage banner, created by @Courtartist.
A week from today, the Supreme Court will hear argument on the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. It's a case that could ultimately determine the fate of many gun-control measures around the country. Here's our preview, from @AHoweBlogger:
In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public - SCOTUSblog
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” On Nov. 3, the Suprem...
The court has rescheduled oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez, an important case involving habeas rights and the death penalty, for Dec. 8.
#SCOTUS also issues revised December argument calendar, adding Shinn v. Ramirez (moved to December from November to accommodate Texas cases) on Dec. 8: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10-26-21-Amended-DEC-2021-Monthly-Argument-Session-Calendar.pdf
#SCOTUS issues order on divided argument in next week's Texas abortion cases, allows Texas to file one consolidated (but oversized) brief for both cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102621zr_o7jp.pdf
Happening now outside SCOTUS: Several dozens supporters of expanding the size of the court are holding a rally. Speakers include Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tina Smith, and Rep. Mondaire Jones.