District of Columbia v. Wesby

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-1485	D.C. Cir.	Oct 4, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Jan 22, 2018	9-0	Thomas	OT 2017

Holding: (1) The police officers had probable cause to arrest several partygoers who later sued for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District of Columbia law, and (2) the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 22, 2018. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

OT2017 #13: "Poker Face" (First Mondays)
A "view" from the courtroom: Open for business, with a hiccup (Mark Walsh)
Opinion analysis: Police prevail in the case of "Peaches" and the party (Amy Howe)
OT2017 #3: “Nowheresville” (ft. Nina Totenberg) (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: The justices get personal in probable-cause argument (Amy Howe)
Academic highlight: Schwartz on qualified immunity (Amanda Frost)
Argument preview: Parties, probable cause and the Fourth Amendment (Amy Howe)
Court releases October calendar (Amy Howe)
Court adds two more cases to its merits docket (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Apr 13 2016	Application (15A1050) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 8, 2016 to June 8, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Apr 13 2016	Application (15A1050) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 8, 2016.
Jun 08 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 8, 2016)
Jun 28 2016	Waiver of right of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. to respond filed.
Jul 08 2016	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc.
Jul 08 2016	Brief amici curiae of Utah and Seventeen Other States filed.
Jul 13 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
Jul 18 2016	Response Requested. (Due August 17, 2016)
Aug 08 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 16, 2016.
Sep 16 2016	Brief of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. in opposition filed.
Oct 04 2016	Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed.
Oct 05 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2016.
Oct 31 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 4, 2016.
Nov 07 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 10, 2016.
Nov 14 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.
Nov 28 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.
Dec 05 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.
Dec 27 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.
Jan 09 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.
Jan 17 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.
Jan 19 2017	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. GRANTED.
Jan 19 2017	Petition GRANTED.
Feb 17 2017	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 5, 2017.
Feb 17 2017	The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 12, 2017.
Apr 05 2017	Application (16A956) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits from August 11, 2017 to September 1, 2017, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Apr 12 2017	Application (16A956) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file the reply brief on the merits until September 1, 2017.
May 05 2017	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
May 05 2017	Brief of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed.
May 11 2017	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Counties, et al. filed.
May 12 2017	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
May 12 2017	Brief amici curiae of Utah and Twenty-Five Other States filed.
May 22 2017	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Jul 12 2017	Brief of respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. filed.
Jul 19 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
Jul 19 2017	Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.
Aug 01 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.
Aug 09 2017	CIRCULATED
Aug 21 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit is electronic and available on PACER with the exception of one restricted document that is electronic.
Aug 25 2017	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Sep 01 2017	Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 04 2017	Argued. For petitioners: Todd Kim, Solicitor General, Washington, D. C.; and Robert A. Parker, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Nathaniel P. Garrett, San Francisco, Cal.
Jan 22 2018	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part.
Feb 23 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
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 will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
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 »
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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

District of Columbia v. Wesby

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 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