Lane v. Franks

Editor's Note :

Lane v. Franks

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 27, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-483	11th Cir.	Apr 28, 2014 Tr.Aud.	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.

Commentary: The fundamental constitutional principle not discussed in Lane v. Franks (Marty Lederman)
Opinion analysis: First Amendment clearly protects public employee’s subpoenaed testimony – but not sufficiently clearly to overcome qualified immunity (Ruthann Robson)
Argument analysis: How wrong was the Eleventh Circuit about the First Amendment protections for a public employee’s subpoenaed testimony? (Ruthann Robson)
Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employee’s subpoenaed testimony (Ruthann Robson)
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Qualified immunity (Stephen Wermiel)
Court to rule on cellphone privacy (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender – Amy Howe

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in three argued cases: United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will release its final opinions for the term.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Kisor v. Wilkie Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas Tennessee’s 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the commerce clause and is not saved by the 21st Amendment.
- United States v. Haymond The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s judgment – that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 66

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	66
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions

27
Opinions
Conference