|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-449||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.|
|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|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...