|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-382||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Apr 1, 2013||TBD||Per Curiam||OT 2012|
Holding: The Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to respondent Otis Lee Rodgers, who argued that the state courts violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when it failed to appoint an attorney to help him file a motion for a new trial, even when he had waived his right to an attorney on three previous occasions. Even assuming that, after a defendant validly waives his right to trial counsel, a post-trial, preappeal motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution, the Ninth Circuit’s holding that respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law; the courts of appeals may not rely on circuit precedent to refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Court has not announced.
Judgment: Granted, reversed in a per curiam opinion on April 1, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 25 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 29, 2012)|
|Oct 10 2012||Suggestion of mootness filed by respondent Otis Lee Rodgers.|
|Oct 24 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2012.|
|Oct 29 2012||Application (12A440) to recall and stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Nov 2 2012||Response to application (12A440) requested by Justice Kennedy, due Wednesday, November 7, 2012, by noon EST.|
|Nov 2 2012||Response to application from respondent Otis Lee Rodgers filed.|
|Nov 5 2012||Response Requested . (Due December 5, 2012)|
|Nov 5 2012||Application (12A440) for recall of mandate and stay of proceedings denied by Justice Kennedy, without prejudice to renewal of the application in light of any further order of this Court with respect to the petition for a writ of certiorari or in light of further developments in the trial court.|
|Nov 23 2012||Brief of respondent Otis Lee Rodgers in opposition filed.|
|Nov 23 2012||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Otis Lee Rodgers.|
|Dec 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 14 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 18, 2013.|
|Feb 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.|
|Feb 19 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 22, 2013.|
|Feb 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 1, 2013.|
|Mar 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 18 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013.|
|Mar 19 2013||Supplemental brief of respondent Otis Lee Rodgers filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Mar 28 2013||Supplemental brief of petitioner John Marshall, Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 1 2013||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Apr 1 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Apr 15 2013||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Apr 30 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||Rehearing DENIED.|
|May 20 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
#SCOTUS announces that it will hold a formal, although "purely ceremonial," investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett next Friday. Attendance at the ceremony is by invitation only, & press coverage will be pooled. Full announcement is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-24-21
Need a refresher on "cert before judgment" practice at SCOTUS? We've got you covered.
@steve_vladeck examined the practice (among other types of extraordinary relief) in 2018: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/power-versus-discretion-extraordinary-relief-and-the-supreme-court/
And Kevin Russell wrote a detailed explainer in 2011:
Abortion providers in Texas return to Supreme Court, now asking the justices for immediate review on the merits of their challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban (cert. before judgment)
The Supreme Court will have a new oral argument procedure when they return to the bench Oct. 4. There will be an opportunity for individual questioning by each justice in order of seniority.
Interesting new procedure for oral arguments when the justices return to in-person arguments next month. Does it increase the chances that we will continue to hear from Justice Thomas, who was an active participant using the taking-turns format? https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1440318536723812363
NEW: The Supreme Court just released its December argument calendar. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the term's big abortion case, will be argued Dec. 1.
#SCOTUS will hear oral argument in Mississippi abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1. Full December argument calendar is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2021.pdf
We noted yesterday that Justice Thomas was speaking at Notre Dame but that there was no livestream. A video of his speech is now posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kb4bFYdujA
Thomas criticized the media and defended the court's independence. Seems to be a theme among the justices lately.
💥 Breyer continues book tour (including @colbertlateshow two nights ago).
💥 Barrett gave a speech Sunday @uofl.
💥 Thomas is slated to give the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture today @NotreDame (but, like Barrett's speech, there is apparently no livestream).
Incidentally, Gorsuch had been scheduled to give a speech at the University of Wyoming today, but his visit was canceled due to COVID.
Nothing from Kagan or Gorsuch though 😢 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1438530948207874050