|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-464||11th Cir.||Oct 16, 2013||Feb 25, 2014||6-3||Kagan||OT 2013|
Holding: When challenging the legality of a pre-trial asset seizure under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1), a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe that he committed the crimes charged.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on February 25, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 11 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2012)|
|Nov 6 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2012.|
|Nov 14 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Dec 5 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 14, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 13, 2013.|
|Feb 13 2013||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 18 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 3 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 21, 2013.|
|Jun 13 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 1, 2013.|
|Jun 13 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jul 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Jul 1 2013||Brief of petitioners Kerri L. Kaley, et vir filed.|
|Jul 1 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.|
|Jul 8 2013||Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jul 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Jul 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of New York Council of Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 10 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2013.|
|Jul 22 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 23 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 16, 2013.|
|Aug 16 2013||Record Received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit (1 envelope)|
|Aug 22 2013||Record received from the U.S.D.C. of Florida (1 Box)|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 30 2013||Reply of petitioner Kerri L. Kaley, et vir filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Howard Srebnick, Miami, Fla. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 25 2014||Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 31 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Mar 31 2014||Record Received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit has been returned.|
|Mar 31 2014||Record received from United States District Court Southern District of Florida has been returned.|
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 ...
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.