|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1487||11th Cir.||Feb 24, 2015||May 18, 2015||9-0||Kagan||OT 2014|
Disclosure: John Elwood, a regular contributor to this blog, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: A court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by a federal law that prohibits felons from possessing guns if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 18, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 14 2014||Application (13A1039) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 28, 2014 to June 27, 2014, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Apr 17 2014||Application (13A1039) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 27, 2014.|
|Jun 10 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 14, 2014)|
|Jul 10 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 13, 2014.|
|Aug 7 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 27, 2014.|
|Aug 27 2014||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Sep 9 2014||Reply of petitioner Tony Henderson filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.|
|Oct 14 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.|
|Oct 20 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 20 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Dec 4 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 8, 2014.|
|Dec 4 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 13, 2015.|
|Dec 8 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 8 2014||Brief of petitioner Tony Henderson filed.|
|Dec 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief amici curiae of CRPA Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief amici curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Dec 15 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 24, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Jan 6 2015||Record for United States District Court for the District of Jacksonville available on Pacer.|
|Jan 6 2015||Record received from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit. (1 - Envelope)|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 13 2015||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 14 2015||Record received from U.S.D.C. Middle Dist. of Florida. (1 - Envelope) Part of the Record is SEALED.|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 12 2015||Reply of petitioner Tony Henderson filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 24 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, Va. For respondent: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|May 18 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 19 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Sep 22 2015||REVISED JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.