|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-556||Kan.||Nov 4, 2019||Apr 6, 2020||8-1||Thomas||OT 2019|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.
Holding: When a police officer lacks information negating an inference that a person driving is the vehicle’s owner, an investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on April 6, 2020. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 25 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 28, 2018)|
|Nov 26 2018||Waiver of right of respondent Charles Glover to respond filed.|
|Nov 28 2018||Brief amici curiae of States of Oklahoma, et al. filed.|
|Dec 12 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Dec 19 2018||Response Requested. (Due January 18, 2019)|
|Jan 07 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 18, 2019 to February 19, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 09 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 19, 2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||Brief of respondent Charles Glover in opposition filed.|
|Mar 05 2019||Reply of petitioner Kansas filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 06 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.|
|Mar 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.|
|Apr 01 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 04 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Apr 09 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Kansas.|
|Apr 15 2019||Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 17, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2019.|
|Apr 16 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Kansas|
|May 28 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief of petitioner Kansas filed.|
|Jun 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amici curiae of States of Oklahoma, et al. filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Fraternal Order of Police filed.|
|Jun 24 2019||Affidavit of Service filed with respect to brief of amicus curiae of The National Fraternal Order of Police.|
|Jun 24 2019||Certificate of Compliance filed with respect to brief of amicus curiae of The National Fraternal Order of Police.|
|Jul 08 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 4, 2019.|
|Jul 12 2019||Motion for an extension of time filed.|
|Jul 12 2019||Motion for a further extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including August 30, 2019.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 30 2019||Brief of respondent Charles Glover filed.|
|Sep 03 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 06 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2019||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Andrew Manuel Crespo filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2019||Brief amici curiae of Fines and Fees Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 16 2019||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Kansas.|
|Sep 27 2019||Record received from the Appellate Courts of Kansas. (1 Envelope).|
|Sep 30 2019||Reply of petitioner Kansas filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 07 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 04 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Toby Crouse, Solicitor General, Topeka, Kan.; and Michael R. Huston, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Sarah E. Harrington, Bethesda, Md.|
|Apr 06 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|May 08 2020||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|May 08 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.