|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-7553||Ala. _||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: (1) Whether the Alabama courts' failure to find racial and gender discrimination in the selection of Mr. Floyd's jury, where the prosecutor had a documented history of racial discrimination, marked African American venire members with a “B” on his strike list, then struck ten of eleven qualified African American prospective jurors, conflicts with this Court's precedent in Batson v. Kentucky and J.E.B. v. Alabama; and (2) whether this Court should hold this case in abeyance pending its resolution of Foster v. Chatman.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 3 2015||Application (15A493) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 19, 2015 to December 18, 2015, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Nov 12 2015||Application (15A493) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 18, 2015.|
|Dec 18 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 1, 2016)|
|Feb 16 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 2, 2016.|
|Mar 1 2016||Brief of respondent Alabama in opposition filed.|
|Mar 17 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 1, 2016.|
|May 23 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2016.|
|May 26 2016||Record Requested .|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.|
|Jun 6 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 9, 2016.|
|Jun 6 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Alabama. The record is electronic.|
|Jun 13 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.|
|Jun 20 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Foster v. Chatman, 578 U. S. ____ (2016). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting from the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: I would deny the petition for the reasons set out in my statement in Flowers v. Mississippi, 579 U. S. ____ (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting from the decision to grant, vacate, and remand).|
|Jul 22 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
|Jul 22 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.