|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-7120||8th Cir.||Apr 20, 2015||Jun 26, 2015||8-1||Scalia||OT 2014|
Holding: Imposing an increased sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause violates due process.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 26, 2015. Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas filed opinions concurring in the judgement. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 28 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 29, 2013)|
|Nov 20 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 30, 2013.|
|Dec 20 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 29, 2014.|
|Jan 24 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 28, 2014.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Mar 20 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 4, 2014.|
|Apr 7 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 21 2014||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|May 16 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 26, 2014.|
|May 16 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 18, 2014.|
|Jun 13 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Samuel James Johnson.|
|Jun 26 2014||Brief of petitioner Samuel James Johnson filed.|
|Jun 30 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jul 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Aug 18 2014||Brief of respondent the United States filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Brief amici curiae of The Brady Center for Gun Violence, et al. filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 5, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Sep 15 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. 1 - Envelope|
|Sep 17 2014||Reply of petitioner Samuel James Johnson filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 5 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant Federal Defender, Minneapolis, Minn. For respondent: John F. Bash, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 9 2015||This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: "Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague." The supplemental brief of petitioner is due on or before Wednesday, February 18, 2015. The supplemental brief of the United States is due on or before Friday, March 20, 2015. The reply brief, if any, is due on or before Friday, April 10, 2015. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by Rule 37.3(a). The word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs. The case will be set for oral argument during the April 2015 argument session.|
|Feb 18 2015||Supplemental brief of petitioner Samuel James Johnson filed.|
|Feb 25 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Mar 6 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 20, 2015|
|Mar 16 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 17 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Mar 20 2015||Supplemental brief of respondent United States filed (Reprinted). (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2015||Record received from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1-Envelope)|
|Mar 25 2015||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Minnesota. The record is electronic, also 1 envelope (SEALED).|
|Apr 10 2015||Supplemental reply brief of petitioner Samuel James Johnson filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 20 2015||Reargued. For petitioner: Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant Federal Defender, Minneapolis, Minn. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 26 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., and Thomas, J., filed opinions concurring the judgment. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 28 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.