|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-207||Md.||Feb 26, 2013||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.