|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-483||11th Cir.||Apr 28, 2014||Jun 19, 2014||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: Testimony in a criminal prosecution by a government employee about fraud in the program where he works is protected by the First Amendment; however, the supervisor who fired him in retaliation for that testimony has qualified immunity from suit because it was not "beyond debate" that the employee’s testimony was protected.
Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded., 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 19, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 15 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 18, 2013)|
|Nov 14 2013||Brief of respondent Steve Franks in opposition filed.|
|Nov 26 2013||Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.|
|Dec 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Jan 13 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014.|
|Jan 17 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 4 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 28, 2014|
|Feb 19 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Steve Franks.|
|Feb 20 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Susan Burrows.|
|Feb 20 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Edward R. Lane.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief of respondent Susan Burrow in support of reversal in part and affirmance in part filed.|
|Mar 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.|
|Mar 7 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Alabama is electronic. (Not on PACER).|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Government Accountability Project filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed.|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Police Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Coalition filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief of respondent Steve Franks filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 8 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed.|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 11 2014||Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 17 2014||Reply of respondent Susan Burrow filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 18 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2014||Letter from counsel for petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 28 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent Burrow: Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala. For respondent Franks: Mark T. Waggoner, Birmingham, Ala.|
|Jun 19 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 21 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
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: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.