|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit violated the backward-looking nature of Section 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the clear mandates announced by the Supreme Court in Sexton v. Beaudreaux, Cullen v. Pinholster, and Harrington v. Richter when it considered — and based its ultimate decision upon — an argument the respondent, Alonzo Cortez Johnson, never made to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 12 2021||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 18, 2022)|
|Jan 13 2022||Brief of Alonzo Cortez Johnson in opposition submitted.|
|Jan 13 2022||Motion of Alonzo Cortez Johnson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis submitted.|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.