|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) should routinely be granted where the state courts and state judges have divided on the merits of the constitutional question as held by the 5th and 7th Circuits, several District Courts and three justices of this Court, or should courts deny a COA despite the dispute among reasonable state jurists as held by the 9th Circuit and District Court below; (2) whether, as a threshold matter, Petitioner made a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether his petition should have been resolved in a different manner where the California Supreme Court’s published opinion created a split with every state and lower federal court since Perry v. Leeke, which have held that a trial court order that violates the “defendant’s right to unrestricted access to his lawyer for advice on a variety of trial-related matters” is structural error, reversible per se; and (3) whether the 9th Circuit improperly looked beyond the threshold inquiry of whether a COA is merited and decided the merits without jurisdiction in contravention of this Court’s holding in Buck v. Davis, where different state court judges reached opposite conclusions on Petitioner’s constitutional claim and where all lower federal and state court authority disagrees with the California Supreme Court’s holding on this constitutional claim.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 27 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 3, 2020)|
|Dec 17 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Jan 05 2021||Response Requested. (Due February 4, 2021)|
|Jan 22 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 4, 2021 to March 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 25 2021||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 8, 2021. See Rule 30.1.|
|Mar 08 2021||Brief of respondent Suzanne M. Peery, Warden in opposition filed.|
|Mar 22 2021||Reply of petitioner Jacob Townley Hernandez filed.|
|Mar 25 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.|
|Apr 12 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 19 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.|
|Apr 21 2021||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 26 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.|
|Apr 27 2021||Rescheduled.|
|May 10 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.|
|May 10 2021||Rescheduled.|
|May 17 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.|
|May 24 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.|
|Jun 01 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.|
|Jun 07 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/10/2021.|
|Jun 14 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.|
|Jun 21 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.|
In clash between private property rights and pro-union interests, the Supreme Court invalidates a California regulation that requires agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto their property to speak with workers. SCOTUS says the regulation violates the 5th Amendment.
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
In the second Supreme Court opinion of the day, the court holds that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) is unconstitutional because of the limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's director.
The Supreme Court issues its opinion in the "hot pursuit" case -- a case about when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. In an opinion by Kagan, the court declines to adopt a bright-line rule on "hot pursuits" of people suspected of misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court will release one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. Join us on the live blog beginning at 9:45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
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.
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.