|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-316||10th Cir||Apr 1, 2014||Jun 23, 2014||9-0||Kagan||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), which makes it a crime to "knowing execut[e] a scheme … to obtain " property owned by, or under the custody of, a bank "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses," does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.
Judgment: Affirmed on June 23, 2014. Justices Scalia and Thomas join the opinion as to Parts I and II, Part III-A except the last paragraph, an the last footnote of Part III-B. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 9 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2013)|
|Oct 1 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 12, 2013.|
|Nov 15 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 18, 2013.|
|Nov 18 2013||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Nov 25 2013||Reply of petitioner Kevin Loughrin filed.|
|Nov 26 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.|
|Dec 13 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 8 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 1, 2014|
|Jan 14 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, part of the record is electronic and located on PACER. The other part of the record received in one envelope is SEALED.|
|Jan 27 2014||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jan 27 2014||Brief of petitioner Kevin Loughrin filed.|
|Feb 3 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2014||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2014||Reply of petitioner Kevin Loughrin filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 1 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Kevin K. Russell, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 23 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II, Part III-A except the last paragraph, and the last footnote of Part III-B. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.|
|Jul 25 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 29 2014||Record returned for U.S.C.A. for 10th Circuit.|
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 ...