|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-450||Kan.||Oct 7, 2015||Jan 20, 2016||8-1||Scalia||OT 2015|
Holding: 1) The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) The Constitution did not require severance of joint sentencing proceedings because the contention that the admission of mitigating evidence by one defendant could have "so infected" the jury's consideration of the other defendant's sentence as to amount to a denial of due process does not stand in light of all the evidence presented at the guilty and penalty phases relevant to the jury's sentencing determination.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on January 20, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 16 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2014)|
|Oct 16 2014||Appendix of Kansas (2-volumes) filed.|
|Nov 17 2014||Brief of respondent Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 17 2014||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr.|
|Nov 25 2014||Reply of petitioner Kansas filed.|
|Dec 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Dec 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jan 6 2015||Rescheduled.|
|Feb 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 27, 2015.|
|Mar 30 2015||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Mar 30 2015||Petition GRANTED limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-449 are granted limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Apr 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioners. VIDED|
|Apr 21 2015||The Clerk has approved use of the deferred joint appendix method, and the joint appendix is to be filed on or before August 10, 2015. VIDED|
|Apr 21 2015||The time to file petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 8, 2015. VIDED|
|Apr 21 2015||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including August 3, 2015. VIDED|
|Jun 5 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefsl in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsl for the respondent. VIDED.|
|Jun 8 2015||Brief of petitioner Kansas filed (Reprinted). VIDED.|
|Jun 12 2015||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 15 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 19 2015||Motion for scheduling of argument and for divided argument filed by respondents in Nos. 14-449, 14-450 & 14-452. VIDED.|
|Jun 23 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 29 2015||Motion for scheduling of argument and for divided argument filed by respondents in Nos. 14-449, 14-450 & 14-452 GRANTED. VIDED.|
|Jun 29 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. VIDED|
|Jun 29 2015||Upon consideration of the joint motion of respondents for scheduling of argument and for divided argument, and of the motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Nos. 14- 449 and 14-450, the following allocation of oral argument time is adopted. A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument in No. 14-452, and on Question 1 in Nos. 14-449 and 14-450, to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 20 minutes for respondents Jonathan D. Carr and Sidney J. Gleason, and 10 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr. A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument on Question 2 in Nos. 14-449 and 14-450, to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioner, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr, and 10 minutes for respondent Jonathan D. Carr. VIDED|
|Jul 29 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 7, 2015.|
|Aug 3 2015||Brief of respondent Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr. filed. (Reprinted)|
|Aug 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The Promise of Justice Initiative filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Aug 12 2015||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Kansas.|
|Aug 13 2015||Joint appendix filed (2 volumes). (Statement of costs filed.) VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Sep 2 2015||Reply of petitioner Kansas (on the severance question) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Sep 24 2015||Record received from the Supreme Court of Kansas, (2 Boxes) part of the record is electronic.|
|Oct 1 2015||Letter from counsel for petitioner filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 5 2015||Joint letter from counsel for respondents in 14-449 & 14-450 filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 7 2015||Argued (Burden Question). For petitioner: Derek L. Schmidt, Attorney General, Topeka, Kan. For respondent in 14-452 & 14-449: Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 14-450: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. VIDED|
|Oct 7 2015||Argued (Severance Question). For petitioner: Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General, Topeka, Kan.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent in 14-450: Frederick Liu, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 14-449: Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, D. C. VIDED|
|Jan 20 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion. VIDED. (Opinion also for No. 14-452)|
|Feb 23 2016||Judgment Issued|
|Feb 23 2016||Mandate Issued|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.