|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-6694||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether the trial court's order granting a request by the accused's codefendant to prohibit the accused from testifying about details that were exculpatory to the accused but prejudicial to his codefendant constituted an impermissible limitation on the accused's right to testify in his own behalf as set forth in Rock v. Arkansas; and (2) whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to acquire cell-site location information used to track and reconstruct the location and movements of cell-phone users over extended periods of time.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 28 2016||Application (16A115) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 29, 2016 to October 28, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Aug 03 2016||Application (16A115) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 28, 2016.|
|Oct 27 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 2, 2016)|
|Nov 23 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 3, 2017.|
|Dec 15 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 3, 2017.|
|Feb 02 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 6, 2017.|
|Mar 06 2017||Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by respondent.|
|Mar 06 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Mar 15 2017||Reply of petitioner Eric Jordan filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.|
|Apr 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.|
|Apr 24 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.|
|May 08 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.|
|May 15 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.|
|May 22 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.|
|May 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.|
|Jun 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2018.|
|Jun 28 2018||Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.|
|Jun 28 2018||Petition DENIED.|
|Jul 20 2018||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Aug 02 2018||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Aug 24 2018||Rehearing DENIED.|
The court has rescheduled oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez, an important case involving habeas rights and the death penalty, for Dec. 8.
#SCOTUS also issues revised December argument calendar, adding Shinn v. Ramirez (moved to December from November to accommodate Texas cases) on Dec. 8: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10-26-21-Amended-DEC-2021-Monthly-Argument-Session-Calendar.pdf
#SCOTUS issues order on divided argument in next week's Texas abortion cases, allows Texas to file one consolidated (but oversized) brief for both cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102621zr_o7jp.pdf
Happening now outside SCOTUS: Several dozens supporters of expanding the size of the court are holding a rally. Speakers include Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tina Smith, and Rep. Mondaire Jones.
On Friday, the Supreme Court moved the Texas abortion litigation off the shadow docket and onto the "rocket docket." @maryrziegler explains how the expedited schedule is an important shift from how the court initially handled the issue in early September.
Supreme speed: The court puts abortion on the rocket docket - SCOTUSblog
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: ...
The court has adjusted its November argument schedule to reflect the accelerated consideration of the Texas abortion law.
#SCOTUS issues new oral argument calendar for November in light of today's orders scheduling Texas abortion cases for Nov. 1. Ramirez v. Collier, originally scheduled for Nov. 1, is now set for Nov. 9; Shinn v. Ramirez, originally set for Nov. 1, will be argued in December.
We've got two ways to catch up on what the Supreme Court did today on the Texas anti-abortion law.
For prose lovers, here's @AHoweBlogger's story: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/court-wont-block-texas-abortion-ban-but-fast-tracks-cases-for-argument-on-nov-1/
For the more video-inclined, here's @katieleebarlow's TikTok explainer: