|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issues: (1) Whether, in a means-of-execution suit, known and available alternatives are limited to those already provided in a statute an inmate is challenging; (2) whether an inmate pleads a known and available alternative by identifying an execution method – firing squad – that other states have used and that the state has admitted it can carry out; and (3) whether an inmate pleads a known and available alternative by identifying a lethal-injection drug and identifying vendors who currently sell it.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 5 2016||Application (16A336) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 19, 2016 to November 18, 2016, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Oct 6 2016||Response in opposition to application from respondents Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. filed.|
|Oct 7 2016||Application (16A336) denied by Justice Alito.|
|Oct 19 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 21, 2016)|
|Nov 4 2016||Brief of respondents Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 15 2016||Reply of petitioners Stacey Johnson, et al. filed.|
|Nov 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University School of Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.|
|Dec 22 2016||Supplemental brief of petitioners Stacey Johnson, et al. filed.|
|Dec 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.|
|Feb 6 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Feb 14 2017||Second supplemental brief of petitioners Stacey Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2017||Amendment to the Second supplemental brief of petitioners Stacey Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2017||Petition DENIED Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent from the denial of certiorari for the reasons set out in Arthur v. Dunn, 580 U.S. ___ (2017) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).|
|Mar 20 2017||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.|
|Apr 10 2017||Supplemental brief to the petition for rehearing filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.|
|Apr 17 2017||Application (16A986) for a stay of execution of sentences of death, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Apr 17 2017||Response to application from respondent Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. filed.|
|Apr 18 2017||Reply of applicant Stacey Johnson, et al. filed.|
|Apr 20 2017||Application (16A986) referred to the Court.|
|Apr 20 2017||Application (16A986) denied by the Court. Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would grant the application for stay of execution. Justice Breyer dissenting from the denial of the application for stay: I dissent from the denial of certiorari for the reasons set out in McGehee v. Hutchinson, 580 U.S. __ (2017).|
|Apr 24 2017||Rehearing DENIED. Justice Sotomayor would grant the petition for rehearing.|
If you’re looking for an explainer of the 15 cases outstanding this term, look no further! Newly updated
via @AHoweBlogger 👇
There's an updated version -- now only 15 opinions to go! https://amylhowe.com/2021/06/18/reading-the-tea-leaves-remaining-cases-as-of-june-18/ https://twitter.com/aander1987/status/1406404952113790977
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
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.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
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.