|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-7822||Cal. Ct. App.||Nov 13, 2013||Feb 25, 2014||6-3||Alito||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Court’s decision in Georgia v. Randolph, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 25, 2014. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 17 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2013)|
|Jan 2 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Jan 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.|
|Feb 4 2013||Response Requested . (Due March 6, 2013)|
|Feb 28 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 5, 2013.|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Apr 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jun 7 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Walter Fernandez.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 31, 2013.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Jun 27 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Gerald P. Peters, Esquire, of Thousand Oaks, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Jul 31 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 31 2013||Brief of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed.|
|Aug 7 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 13, 2013|
|Sep 19 2013||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District.(1 box)|
|Sep 25 2013||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 21 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 25 2013||Reply of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Louis W. Karlin, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, Cal.; and Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Feb 25 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 31 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 31 2014||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District has been returned.|
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.
On Friday, the Supreme Court moved the Texas abortion litigation off the shadow docket and onto the "rocket docket." @maryrziegler explains how the expedited schedule is an important shift from how the court initially handled the issue in early September.
Supreme speed: The court puts abortion on the rocket docket - SCOTUSblog
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: ...
The court has adjusted its November argument schedule to reflect the accelerated consideration of the Texas abortion law.
#SCOTUS issues new oral argument calendar for November in light of today's orders scheduling Texas abortion cases for Nov. 1. Ramirez v. Collier, originally scheduled for Nov. 1, is now set for Nov. 9; Shinn v. Ramirez, originally set for Nov. 1, will be argued in December.