|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-8369||10th Cir.||Feb 26, 2020||Jun 8, 2020||9-0||Kagan||OT 2019|
Holding: A Prison Litigation Reform Act provision that generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis — that is, without first paying the filing fee — if he has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the ground[ ] that [they] ... fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 8, 2020. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion as to all but footnote 4.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 05 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 10, 2019)|
|Apr 24 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.|
|Apr 30 2019||Response Requested. (Due May 30, 2019)|
|May 20 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 30, 2019 to July 1, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|May 23 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 1, 2019.|
|Jul 01 2019||Brief of respondents Christina Ortiz-Marquez, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jul 16 2019||Reply of petitioner Arthur Lomax filed.|
|Jul 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Oct 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.|
|Oct 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 18 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Does a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)?|
|Nov 05 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Nov 25 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2019. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2020.|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 26, 2020.|
|Dec 06 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Christina Ortiz-Marquez, et al.|
|Dec 09 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief of petitioner Arthur Lomax filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Jan 09 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 10th circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 15 2020||Brief of respondents Christina Ortiz-Marquez, et al. filed.|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 22 2020||Amicus brief of United States not accepted for filing. (January 22, 2020 - Correct electronic file to be submitted.)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Council of State Governments, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Arizona, Connecticut, and 30 other states filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2020||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 14 2020||Reply of petitioner Arthur Lomax filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Brian T. Burgess, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Eric R. Olson, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo.; and Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 08 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but footnote 4.|
|Jul 10 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We are honored to be chosen as the winner of an American Journalism Online Award for Best Non-profit News Source. Thanks to everyone for reading & supporting SCOTUSblog, including on our opinion-day live blogs, which the awarding judge called a "digital townsquare." #AJOawards
The winner of the award for Best Non-Profit News Source is @scotusblog. Judge @juliachanb called the site “a crucial tool in a political journalist’s toolbox” and praised their recent site revamp and dedication to transparency. https://www.scotusblog.com 2/
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...