|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-6199||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
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.|
|Jun 28 2021||Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
#SCOTUS announces that it will hold a formal, although "purely ceremonial," investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett next Friday. Attendance at the ceremony is by invitation only, & press coverage will be pooled. Full announcement is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-24-21
Need a refresher on "cert before judgment" practice at SCOTUS? We've got you covered.
@steve_vladeck examined the practice (among other types of extraordinary relief) in 2018: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/power-versus-discretion-extraordinary-relief-and-the-supreme-court/
And Kevin Russell wrote a detailed explainer in 2011:
Abortion providers in Texas return to Supreme Court, now asking the justices for immediate review on the merits of their challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban (cert. before judgment)
The Supreme Court will have a new oral argument procedure when they return to the bench Oct. 4. There will be an opportunity for individual questioning by each justice in order of seniority.
Interesting new procedure for oral arguments when the justices return to in-person arguments next month. Does it increase the chances that we will continue to hear from Justice Thomas, who was an active participant using the taking-turns format? https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1440318536723812363
NEW: The Supreme Court just released its December argument calendar. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the term's big abortion case, will be argued Dec. 1.
#SCOTUS will hear oral argument in Mississippi abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1. Full December argument calendar is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2021.pdf
We noted yesterday that Justice Thomas was speaking at Notre Dame but that there was no livestream. A video of his speech is now posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kb4bFYdujA
Thomas criticized the media and defended the court's independence. Seems to be a theme among the justices lately.
💥 Breyer continues book tour (including @colbertlateshow two nights ago).
💥 Barrett gave a speech Sunday @uofl.
💥 Thomas is slated to give the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture today @NotreDame (but, like Barrett's speech, there is apparently no livestream).
Incidentally, Gorsuch had been scheduled to give a speech at the University of Wyoming today, but his visit was canceled due to COVID.
Nothing from Kagan or Gorsuch though 😢 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1438530948207874050