|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-21||11th Cir.||Feb 27, 2018||Jun 18, 2018||8-1||Kennedy||OT 2017|
Holding: The existence of probable cause for Fane Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting does not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 18, 2018. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 09 2017||Application (16A1100) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 29, 2017 to June 28, 2017, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|May 15 2017||Application (16A1100) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 28, 2017.|
|Jun 28 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2017)|
|Jul 28 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Jul 28 2017||Waiver of right of respondent Riviera Beach, FL to respond filed.|
|Jul 31 2017||Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Foundation filed.|
|Aug 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|Aug 10 2017||Response Requested. (Due September 11, 2017)|
|Aug 16 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 11, 2017.|
|Oct 11 2017||Brief of respondent Riviera Beach, FL in opposition filed.|
|Oct 18 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Oct 18 2017||Reply of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Nov 13 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 19 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Fane Lozman|
|Dec 20 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 27, 2018|
|Dec 22 2017||Brief of petitioner Fane Lozman filed.|
|Dec 22 2017||Joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 27 2017||Brief amici curiae of Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center filed.|
|Dec 27 2017||Brief amici curiae of Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, et al. filed.|
|Dec 29 2017||Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, et al. filed.|
|Dec 29 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Press Photographers Association and 25 Media and Free Speech Organizations filed.|
|Dec 29 2017||Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 29 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed.|
|Jan 05 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 09 2018||Motion of respondent for an extension of time filed.|
|Jan 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Jan 11 2018||Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted, and the time is extended to and including January 26, 2018. Amicus briefs in support of respondent are to be filed on or before January 29, 2018.|
|Jan 22 2018||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) is electronic.|
|Jan 24 2018||Record from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida. (1 Envelope).|
|Jan 26 2018||Brief of respondent Riviera Beach, FL filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2018||Brief amicus curiae of State of Alaska filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 02 2018||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 16 2018||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 16 2018||Reply of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.; and Jeffrey B. Wall, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 18 2018||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jun 25 2018||Statement of Printing Cost of Fane Lozman not accepted for filing. (August 03, 2018 - Document not meant for electronic filing.)|
|Jul 20 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 29 2018||The record from the U.S.D.C. Southern Dist. of Florida has been returned.|
🚨 LIVE NOW 🚨 5PM on IGTV #SimplePolitics join me & @AHoweBlogger editor / reporter for the @SCOTUSblog for a great conversation on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court. There is so much to talk about.
SimplePolitics with Kim Wehle - Special Guest Bill Kristol, Editor-At-Large, The Bulwark
Tonight on #SimplePolitics, Bill Kristol and I have an in-depth conversation about Impeachment, what‘s next for ...
ICYMI: We got Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first majority opinion today.
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the Supreme Court will hand down one or more opinions in argued cases.
We’ll be live blogging through it at 9:45 with @AHoweBlogger, Mark Walsh, and @jamesromoser.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, March 4 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, March 4, as the court releases opinions from the 2020-21 term. This live ...
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
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.