|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-604||N.C.||Oct 6, 2014||Dec 15, 2014||8-1||Roberts||OT 2014|
Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case at the cert. stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but he is not participating in the case at the merits stage.
Holding: A police officer’s reasonable mistake of law gives rise to reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on December 15, 2014. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 13 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 18, 2013)|
|Dec 6 2013||Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina to respond filed.|
|Dec 6 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, rreceived from counsel for the respondent.|
|Dec 18 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 24 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Jan 6 2014||Response Requested . (Due February 5, 2014)|
|Jan 29 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 7, 2014.|
|Mar 7 2014||Brief of respondent North Carolina in opposition filed.|
|Mar 18 2014||Reply of petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien filed.|
|Mar 19 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 4, 2014.|
|Apr 7 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 21 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|May 13 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 9, 2014.|
|May 13 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 14, 2014.|
|May 22 2014||Order further extending time to file respondent's brief on the merits to and including July 21, 2014.|
|May 22 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 9 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jun 9 2014||Brief of petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien filed.|
|Jun 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jun 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jun 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors Charles E. MacLean & Adam Lamparello filed.|
|Jun 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Jul 9 2014||Record requested from Supreme Court of North Carolina.|
|Jul 14 2014||Record received from the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The record is electronic.|
|Jul 18 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, October 6, 2014|
|Jul 21 2014||Brief of respondent North Carolina filed.|
|Jul 28 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jul 28 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jul 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of Wisconsin, et al. filed.|
|Jul 28 2014||Brief amici curiae of The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, et al. filed.|
|Aug 7 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Reply of petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 29 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 6 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Robert C. Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, N. C.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Dec 15 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jan 16 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.