|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-6368||7th Cir.||Apr 27, 2015||Jun 22, 2015||5-4||Breyer||OT 2014|
Holding: To prove an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the officers’ use of that force was objectively unreasonable; he does not need to show that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 22, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 2 2014||Application (14A11) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 17, 2014 to August 18, 2014, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jul 2 2014||Application (14A11) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 18, 2014.|
|Aug 18 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2014)|
|Oct 10 2014||Waiver of right of respondents Stan Hendrickson, et al. to respond filed.|
|Oct 23 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.|
|Oct 28 2014||Response Requested . (Due November 28, 2014)|
|Nov 24 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 5, 2014.|
|Dec 4 2014||Brief of respondents Stan Hendrickson, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 17 2014||Reply of petitioner Michael B. Kingsley filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 18 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jan 12 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.|
|Jan 16 2015||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Feb 10 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 19 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Mar 2 2015||Brief of petitioner Michael B. Kingsley filed.|
|Mar 2 2015||Joint appendix filed.|
|Mar 6 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 27, 2015|
|Mar 6 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 9 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Corrections Administrators and Experts filed.|
|Mar 9 2015||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Mar 9 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Mar 9 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs' Association et al. filed (REPRINTED). (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 17 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit.|
|Mar 17 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States supporting affirmance filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 17 2015||Record from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Mar 24 2015||Record received from U.S.D.C. Western Dist. of Wisconsin is electronic and SEALED.|
|Apr 1 2015||Brief of respondents Stan Hendrickson, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 8 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 8 2015||Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 8 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 17 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 17 2015||Reply of petitioner Michael B. Kingsley filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 27 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Wendy M. Ward, Madison, Wis. For United States as amicus curiae: John F. Bash, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 22 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 24 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
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.