|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|
On a special episode of SCOTUStalk: @AHoweBlogger and @TomGoldsteinSB discuss Breyer's retirement and preview the process of selecting his successor.
Listen on your podcast platform of choice, or right here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the-retirement-of-stephen-breyer/
A SPECIAL episode of SCOTUStalk out today: On the man of the moment
The retirement of Stephen Breyer https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the-retirement-of-stephen-breyer/
Alabama executed Matthew Reeves by lethal injection a few hours after SCOTUS, in a 5-4 vote, dissolved a lower-court ruling that said Reeves had a right to select nitrogen gas as his method of execution. Our coverage of the decision, from @ellena_erskine:
Court green-lights Alabama execution in 5-4 ruling that reverses two lower courts - SCOTUSblog
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday evening allowed Alabama to execute a man who argued that the state had faile...
#SCOTUS grants Alabama's request to allow execution of Matthew Reeves to go forward. Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicates that she would have denied the state's request; Justice Elena Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor. Order & dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a372_5436.pdf
In remarks at the White House, Biden calls Breyer a beacon of wisdom on the Constitution and reiterates his commitment to select a Black woman to succeed him. Biden says he intends to nominate a successor by the end of February.
Breyer makes it official: He tells President Biden in a letter that his retirement will take effect at the end of the current term, assuming his successor has been confirmed by then.