|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-7505||Fla.||Oct 13, 2015||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.