|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.|
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.