|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1516||7th Cir.||Jan 12, 2016||Jan 20, 2016||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2015|
Issue: Whether the Seventh Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court's decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court.
Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on January 20, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 21 2015||Application (14A1074) to recall and stay mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Apr 24 2015||Response to application 14A1074 requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, May 1, 2015, by 5 p.m ET.|
|Apr 30 2015||Response to application from respondent Lawrence Owens filed.|
|May 4 2015||Reply of applicant Stephen Duncan, Warden filed.|
|May 11 2015||Application (14A1074) denied by Justice Kagan.|
|Jun 17 2015||Application (14A1290) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 21, 2015 to July 15, 2015, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jun 22 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 24, 2015)|
|Jun 24 2015||Application (14A1290) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 15, 2015.|
|Jul 14 2015||Waiver of right of respondent Lawrence Owens to respond filed.|
|Jul 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Jul 24 2015||Response Requested . (Due August 24, 2015)|
|Jul 29 2015||Application (15A111) to recall and stay mandate pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jul 30 2015||Application (15A111) denied by Justice Kagan.|
|Aug 4 2015||Application (15A111) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.|
|Aug 13 2015||Application (15A111) referred to the Court.|
|Aug 13 2015||Application (15A111) denied by the Court.|
|Aug 24 2015||Brief of respondent Lawrence Owens in opposition filed.|
|Sep 8 2015||Reply of petitioner Stephen Duncan, Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 1 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 30 2015||Application (15A475) to recall and stay the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Nov 2 2015||Response to application (15A475) requested by Justice Kagan. (Due Friday, November 6, 2015, by 4 p.m. EST.)|
|Nov 6 2015||Response to application from respondent Lawrence Owens filed.|
|Nov 10 2015||Reply of applicant Stephen Duncan, Warden filed.|
|Nov 13 2015||Application (15A475) referred to the Court.|
|Nov 13 2015||Application (15A475) granted by the Court. The application to recall and stay the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in case No. 14-1419, presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court, is granted pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The request seeking that the respondent be returned to applicants custody pending final disposition of this case is denied, thus leaving that determination for the state court.|
|Nov 16 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 16 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 16 2015||Brief of petitioner Stephen Duncan, Warden filed.|
|Nov 19 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington, et al. filed.|
|Nov 24 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, January 12, 2016|
|Dec 4 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit.|
|Dec 8 2015||The record from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of one document which is electronic and SEALED.|
|Dec 14 2015||Record from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois is electronic.|
|Dec 15 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 16 2015||Brief of respondent Lawrence Owens filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 30 2015||Reply of petitioner Stephen Duncan, Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois, Chicago, Ill. For respondent: Barry Levenstam, Chicago, Ill.|
|Jan 20 2016||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.|
|Feb 23 2016||Judgment Issued|
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
No real opinions today. The Supreme Court dismissed cert as "improvidently granted" in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.—a case about arbitration agreements.
That's all for today, folks.
The Supreme Court does not add any cases to its docket. It sends the Trump emoluments case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss as moot.
Here is the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.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.