|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-9496||7th Cir.||Oct 5, 2016||Mar 21, 2017||6-2||Kagan||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) Elijah Manuel may challenge his pretrial detention on Fourth Amendment grounds; and (2) on remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit should determine the accrual date of Manuel's Fourth Amendment claim, unless it finds that the city of Joliet has previously waived its timeliness argument.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 21, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 27 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 27, 2015)|
|May 20 2015||Waiver of right of respondents City of Joliet, Illinois, et al. to respond filed.|
|Jun 10 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.|
|Jun 17 2015||Response Requested . (Due July 17, 2015)|
|Oct 20 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 4, 2015.|
|Nov 12 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 4, 2015.|
|Dec 4 2015||Brief of respondents City of Joliet, Illinois, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 14 2015||Reply of petitioner Elijah Manuel filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Jan 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.|
|Jan 15 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Feb 1 2016||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Elijah Manuel.|
|Feb 17 2016||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.|
|Feb 26 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 2, 2016.|
|Feb 26 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 3, 2016.|
|Mar 7 2016||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED and Stanley B. Eisenhammer, Esquire, of Arlington Heights, Illinois, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Apr 12 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Apr 15 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondents.|
|May 2 2016||Joint appendix filed.|
|May 2 2016||Brief of petitioner Elijah Manuel filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Albert W. Alschuler filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The National Police Accountability Project filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Innocence Network filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association for Public Defense filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amici curiae of U.S. Justice Foundation, et al. filed.|
|May 9 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 13 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 5, 2016.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record from U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Aug 3 2016||Brief of respondents City of Joliet, Illinois, et al. filed.|
|Aug 9 2016||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 10 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 10 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorney's Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 10 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 10 2016||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 10 2016||Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 10 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Sheldon H. Nahmod filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 2 2016||Reply of petitioner Elijah Manuel filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 26 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 5 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Stanley B. Eisenhammer, Arlington Heights, Ill. (Appointed by this Court); and Ilana H. Eisenstein, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Michael A. Scodro, Chicago, Ill.|
|Mar 21 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Apr 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.