|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|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
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.