Honeycutt v. United States

Honeycutt v. United States

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Today in SCOTUS History

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

May 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of May 23, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-142	6th Cir.	Mar 29, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Jun 5, 2017	8-0	Sotomayor	OT 2016

Holding: Because forfeiture pursuant to Section 853(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 is limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the crime, that provision does not permit forfeiture with regard to Terry Honeycutt, who had no ownership interest in his brother's store and did not personally benefit from the illegal sales.

Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 5, 2017. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Opinion analysis: No joint and several liability for federal conspiracy forfeitures (Rory Little)
Argument analysis: A seemingly unanimous and unsurprising view that the statutory term “obtained” limits forfeiture (Rory Little)
Argument preview: Can a conspiracy defendant be ordered to forfeit proceeds he never obtained? (Rory Little)
Justices add drug forfeiture case to merits docket (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 29 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2016)
Aug 24 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 30, 2016.
Sep 19 2016	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 31, 2016.
Oct 31 2016	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Nov 14 2016	Reply of petitioner Terry Michael Honeycutt filed.
Nov 15 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.
Dec 5 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.
Dec 9 2016	Petition GRANTED.
Dec 22 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Dec 30 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Terry Michael Honeycutt.
Jan 9 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Jan 23 2017	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Jan 23 2017	Brief of petitioner Terry Michael Honeycutt filed.
Jan 30 2017	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
Feb 3 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Feb 6 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
Feb 7 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER. One restricted document also received.
Feb 22 2017	CIRCULATED.
Feb 22 2017	Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2017	Reply of petitioner Terry Michael Honeycutt filed. (Distributed)
Mar 29 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 5 2017	Judgment REVERSED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Gorsuch, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Jul 7 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Clarity on “clear evidence” of drug pre-emption? – Elizabeth McCuskey
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Today in SCOTUS History

Fifty years ago today, May 23, 1969, President Richard Nixon nominated Warren Burger to be the 15th chief justice of the United States.
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices met for their May 23 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

28
Orders
Opinions

30
Conference