Hurst v. Florida

Hurst v. Florida

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Washington state motor-fuel tax violates Yakama Treaty – Bethany Berger

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 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 March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-7505	Fla.	Oct 13, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jan 12, 2016	8-1	Sotomayor	OT 2015

Holding: Florida's capital-sentencing scheme, in which a jury renders an “advisory sentence” but a judge must independently weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors before entering a sentence of life or death, violates the Sixth Amendment in light of the Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, which deemed unconstitutional an Arizona capital sentencing scheme that permitted a judge rather than the jury to find the facts necessary to sentence a defendant to death.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 12, 2016. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion analysis: Juries control the death penalty (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
Argument analysis: Moral responsibility for death sentences (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Defining the jury's role on death penalty (Lyle Denniston)
As the 2015 Term opens: The Court’s unusual Eighth Amendment focus (Rory Little)
Criminal law grants for the October Term 2015 (Rory Little)
Court to rule on jury role in death sentencing (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Dec 3 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 12, 2015)
Jan 12 2015	Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
Jan 29 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 16 2015	MANDATE ISSUED
Feb 23 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2015.
Mar 2 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.
Mar 9 2015	Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether Florida's death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
Apr 7 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 28, 2015.
Apr 7 2015	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 29, 2015.
May 28 2015	Joint appendix filed (3 volumes). (Statement of costs filed.)
May 28 2015	Brief of petitioner Timothy Lee Hurst filed.
Jun 4 2015	Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.
Jun 4 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida filed.
Jun 4 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Florida Circuit Court Judges filed.
Jun 4 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.
Jul 29 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.
Jul 29 2015	Brief of respondent Florida filed.
Aug 5 2015	Brief amici curiae of Alabama and Montana filed. (Distributed)
Aug 7 2015	CIRCULATED.
Aug 12 2015	Record requested from the Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 25 2015	Record received from the Supreme Court of Florida. 1 Box.
Aug 28 2015	Reply of petitioner Timothy Lee Hurst filed. (Distributed)
Oct 13 2015	Argued. For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Allen Winsor, Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Fla.
Jan 12 2016	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Feb 16 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED
Feb 16 2016	MANDATE ISSUED
Feb 22 2016	Record returned to the Supreme Court of Florida.

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Washington state motor-fuel tax violates Yakama Treaty – Bethany Berger
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
- Frank v. Gaos This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 52

Cases decided 26

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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	52
Cases decided	26
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference