|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-5807||5th Cir.||Dec 2, 2020||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2020|
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 15 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 4, 2019)|
|Sep 30 2019||Waiver of right of respondent Darrel, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary Vannoy to respond filed.|
|Oct 03 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 11 2019||Response Requested. (Due November 12, 2019)|
|Nov 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 12, 2019 to December 12, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 08 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 12, 2019.|
|Dec 12 2019||Brief of respondent Darrel, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary Vannoy in opposition filed.|
|Dec 30 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Apr 20 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.|
|Apr 27 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.|
|May 04 2020||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis GRANTED. Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether this Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.|
|May 19 2020||Joint motion of the parties for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|May 28 2020||Joint motion of the parties to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted in part. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2020. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 14, 2020. The reply brief is to be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.|
|Jul 09 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Thedrick Edwards.|
|Jul 13 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Darrel, Warden, Louisiana State. Penitentiary Vannoy|
|Jul 15 2020||Joint appendix, including addendum CD of video exhibit, filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 15 2020||Brief of petitioner Thedrick Edwards filed.|
|Jul 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of Center on Race, Inequality, et al. filed.|
|Jul 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of Human Rights for Kids and Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights filed.|
|Jul 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of The Promise of Justice Initiative, et al. filed.|
|Jul 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of Louisiana Professors of Law filed.|
|Jul 21 2020||Brief amici curiae of Jonathan F. Mitchell and Adam K. Mortara in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of DKT Liberty Project filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center and Phillips Black, Inc., in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Law Professors and Social Scientists filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Edward L. Tarpley, Jr., et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Federal Public Defender for the District of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Innocence Project New Orleans filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Former Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Officials filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of JonRe Taylor filed.|
|Jul 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed.|
|Sep 02 2020||Motion for a further extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits filed.|
|Sep 08 2020||Motion for a further extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted, and the time is extended to and including September 28, 2020.|
|Sep 16 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 30, 2020.|
|Sep 28 2020||Brief of respondent Darrel, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary Vannoy filed.|
|Oct 05 2020||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Oct 05 2020||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 05 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed.|
|Oct 05 2020||Brief amicus curiae of State of Oregon filed.|
|Oct 08 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 14 2020||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 19 2020||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 20 2020||Removed for argument on Monday, November 30, 2020.|
|Oct 20 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 2, 2020.|
|Oct 27 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 28 2020||Reply of petitioner Thedrick Edwards filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 02 2020||Argued. For petitioner: André Bélanger, Baton Rouge, La. For respondent: Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La.; and Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jan 27 2021||Record received from the U.S.D.C Middle District of Louisiana. (1 Box)|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.