Kansas v. Carr

Editor's Note :

Kansas v. Carr

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Kansas v. Carr

Linked with:

Kansas v. Gleason

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-449	Kan.	Oct 7, 2015 Tr.Aud.	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.

Opinion analysis: Few sparks, eight votes for the state in Kansas capital cases (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Kansas inmates find skeptical audience at the Court (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Justices to tackle Eighth Amendment -- again (Amy Howe)
As the 2015 Term opens: The Court’s unusual Eighth Amendment focus (Rory Little)
Criminal law grants for the October Term 2015 (Rory Little)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 16 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2014)
Oct 16 2014	Appendix of Kansas (2-volumes) filed.
Dec 10 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.
Jan 6 2015	Response Requested . (Due February 5, 2015)
Feb 4 2015	Brief of respondent Jonathan D. Carr in opposition filed.
Feb 4 2015	Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Jonathan D. Carr.
Feb 10 2015	Reply of petitioner Kansas filed.
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. 14-450 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 briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent. VIDED.
Jun 8 2015	Brief of petitioner Kansas filed (Reprinted). VIDED.
Jun 11 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent. 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 Jonathan D. Carr 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

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73