|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|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.