|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1327||Mich.||Nov 6, 2012||Feb 20, 2013||8-1||Sotomayor||OT 2012|
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial following a court-directed acquittal, even if the acquittal was erroneous.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 20, 2013. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 2 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 4, 2012)|
|May 8 2012||Brief of respondent Michigan in opposition filed.|
|May 16 2012||Reply of petitioner Lamar Evans filed.|
|May 22 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012.|
|Jun 11 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 13 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Lamar Evans.|
|Jun 20 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jun 29 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jul 13 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 17, 2012.|
|Jul 13 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 5, 2012.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, November 6, 2012|
|Aug 14 2012||Record received from Supreme Court of Michigan. (1 envelope)|
|Aug 15 2012||Brief of petitioner Lamar Evans filed.|
|Aug 17 2012||Record received from Court of Appeals of Michigan. (1 envelope)|
|Aug 22 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Oct 5 2012||Brief of respondent Michigan filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 12 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 12 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 26 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 29 2012||Reply of petitioner Lamar Evans filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 6 2012||Argued. For petitioner: David A. Moran, Ann Arbor, Mich. For respondent: Timothy A. Baughman, Detroit, Mich.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Feb 20 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Mar 25 2013||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|May 8 2013||Record returned to Supreme Court of Michigan.|
|May 8 2013||Record returned to Court of Appeals of Michigan.|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...