|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-6135||Kan.||Oct 7, 2019||Mar 23, 2020||6-3||Kagan||OT 2019|
Holding: Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 23, 2020. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 29 2018||Application (18A12) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 30, 2018 to September 28, 2018, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Jul 02 2018||Application (18A12) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until September 28, 2018.|
|Sep 28 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 29, 2018)|
|Oct 16 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 29, 2018 to November 28, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 28, 2018.|
|Nov 28 2018||Brief of respondent Kansas in opposition filed.|
|Dec 12 2018||Reply of petitioner James Kraig Kahler filed.|
|Dec 13 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 03 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Jan 15 2019||Record Requested.|
|Jan 29 2019||Record received from the Supreme Court of Kansas (5 boxes).|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Mar 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.|
|Mar 18 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Apr 16 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Kansas|
|Apr 17 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Apr 23 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 31, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 2, 2019. Petitioner will file the reply brief on the merits on or before August 30, 2019.|
|Apr 29 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, James Kraig Kahler.|
|May 31 2019||Brief of petitioner James Kraig Kahler filed.|
|May 31 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of Philosophy Professors filed.|
|Jun 06 2019||Brief amici curiae of 290 Criminal Law and Mental Health Law Professors filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amicus curiae of John F. Stinneford in support of neither party filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amici curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation of Kansas filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amici curiae of Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Psychiatic Association et al. filed.|
|Jun 07 2019||Brief amici curiae of Legal Historians and Sociologists filed.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 7, 2019.|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 02 2019||Brief of respondent Kansas filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 09 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Lynn Denton, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 09 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Utah, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested form the Supreme Court of Kansas.|
|Aug 30 2019||Reply of petitioner James Kraig Kahler filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 11 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 07 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Sarah Schrup, Chicago, Ill. For respondent: Toby Crouse, Solicitor General, Topeka, Kan.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Mar 23 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Apr 24 2020||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Apr 24 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Feb 23 2021||Record returned to the Supreme Court of California (14 boxes)|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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 ...