Maryland v. King

Editor's Note :

Maryland v. King

Government responds in census case; 4th Circuit remands Maryland case for more fact-finding (Updated) – Amy Howe

Third Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

From 12 to 8: Final countdown at the Supreme Court – SCOTUStalk

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Today in SCOTUS History

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-207	Md.	Feb 26, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Jun 3, 2013	5-4	Kennedy	OT 2012

Holding: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 3, 2013. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Dissenting from the bench (Stephen Wermiel)
“Panopticon”? – Keep your eyes on the word! (Ronald Collins)
Opinion recap: Solving "cold cases" made easier (Lyle Denniston)
Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy? (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Crime, technology, and privacy (Lyle Denniston)
Academic highlight: David Kaye on the Fourth Amendment and DNA sampling (Amanda Frost)
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): The Court takes on DNA screening (Stephen Wermiel)
Court to rule on voting rights law, DNA case (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)
DNA testing may go on (Lyle Denniston)
DNA ruling blocked, for now (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
DNA sampling case develops (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 13 2012	Application (12A48) for a stay of the judgment and mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 18 2012	UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and mandate of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, case No. 68, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Wednesday, July 25, 2012, by 4 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
Jul 20 2012	Response to application from respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. filed.
Jul 23 2012	Reply of applicant Maryland filed.
Jul 26 2012	Letter submitted by respondent
Jul 30 2012	Application (12A48) granted by The Chief Justice. (In Chambers Opinion)
Aug 14 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 17, 2012)
Sep 04 2012	Brief amici curiae of Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 11 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2012.
Sep 12 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Steve Cooley, District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles filed.
Sep 17 2012	Brief amicus curiae of DNA Saves filed.
Sep 17 2012	Brief amici curiae of Maryland Legislators filed.
Sep 17 2012	Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.
Oct 12 2012	Brief of respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. in opposition filed.
Oct 24 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2012.
Oct 24 2012	Reply of petitioner Maryland filed. (Distributed)
Nov 09 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Nov 21 2012	Record Received from the Maryland Court of Appeals. 2 volumes.
Nov 27 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Dec 04 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Dec 18 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Dec 26 2012	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Dec 26 2012	Brief of petitioner Maryland filed.
Dec 28 2012	Brief amici curiae of Genetics, Genomics and Forensic Science Researchers in support of neither party filed.
Dec 28 2012	Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Los Angeles County District Attorney on behalf of Los Angeles County filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Global Alliance for Rapid DNA Testing filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amici curiae of DNA Saves, et al. filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amici curiae of Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc., et al. filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Susana Martinez, Governor of the State of New Mexico filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault filed.
Jan 02 2013	Brief amici curiae of Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 09 2013	Additional record received from the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Part of this record is electronic.
Jan 10 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jan 25 2013	Brief of respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 01 2013	brief amicus curiae of Veterans for Common Sense filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center and twenty-six technical experts and legal scholars filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Public Defenders Service for the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amici curiae of Genetic Scientists Robert Nussbaum and Sara H. Katsanis filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Council for Responsible Genetics filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 01 2013	Brief amici curiae of 14 Scholars of Forensic Evidence filed. (Distributed)
Feb 15 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Feb 19 2013	Reply of petitioner Maryland filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Katherine Winfree, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Baltimore, Md.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C.
Jun 03 2013	Judgment REVERSED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Jul 05 2013	MANDATE ISSUED.
Jul 05 2013	Record returned to Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Jul 05 2013	Record returned to Circuit Court fo Wicomico County.

Featured Posts

Government responds in census case; 4th Circuit remands Maryland case for more fact-finding (Updated) – Amy Howe

Third Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

From 12 to 8: Final countdown at the Supreme Court – SCOTUStalk
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Today in SCOTUS History

Justice Sonia Sotomayor turns 65 today, June 25, 2019.
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions