|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-9572||Miss.||Mar 20, 2019||Jun 21, 2019||7-2||Kavanaugh||OT 2018|
Holding: The trial court at Curtis Flowers’ sixth murder trial committed clear error in concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 21, 2019. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, and III.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 30 2018||Application (17A1205) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 23, 2018 to July 7, 2018, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|May 02 2018||Application (17A1205) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until June 22, 2018.|
|Jun 22 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 26, 2018)|
|Jul 17 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 26, 2018 to August 27, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 20 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 27, 2018.|
|Jul 26 2018||Brief amici curiae of Magnolia Bar Association, Mississippi Center for Justice, and Innocence Project New Orleans filed.|
|Aug 20 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 27, 2018 to September 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 23 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 26, 2018.|
|Sep 27 2018||Brief of respondent Mississippi in opposition filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Reply of petitioner Curtis Flowers filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.|
|Nov 02 2018||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), in this case.|
|Nov 20 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits filed.|
|Nov 27 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including December 27, 2018.|
|Dec 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 27 2018||Joint appendix filed (2 Volumes). (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 27 2018||Brief of petitioner Curtis Flowers filed.|
|Jan 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of Former Justice Department Officials filed.|
|Jan 08 2019||Motion of respondent for an extension of time filed.|
|Jan 15 2019||Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits is granted to and including February 7, 2019.|
|Jan 25 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 20, 2019|
|Feb 07 2019||Brief of respondent State of Mississippi filed.|
|Feb 14 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 26 2019||Record received from the Supreme Court of Mississippi is electronic and complete.|
|Mar 07 2019||Reply of petitioner Curtis Flowers filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Sheri Lynn Johnson, Ithaca, N. Y. For respondent: Jason Davis, Special Assistant Attorney General, Jackson, Miss.|
|Jun 21 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III.|
|Jul 23 2019||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 23 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Nov 06 2019||MANDATE ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.