|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|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.