|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|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.