|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-217||4th Cir.||Oct 16, 2019||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2019|
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 16 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 19, 2018)|
|Aug 31 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 19, 2018 to October 19, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 31 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 19, 2018|
|Sep 18 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc. filed.|
|Oct 19 2018||Brief of respondent Lee Boyd Malvo in opposition filed.|
|Oct 30 2018||Reply of petitioner Randall Mathena filed.|
|Nov 07 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.|
|Nov 29 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 03 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Mar 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.|
|Mar 18 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 19 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Randall Mathena.|
|Mar 20 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 11, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2019.|
|Jun 11 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 11 2019||Brief of petitioner Randall Mathena filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of States of Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of Jonathan F. Mitchell and Adam K. Mortara filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 16, 2019.|
|Jul 17 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Aug 20 2019||Brief of respondent Lee Boyd Malvo filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Isa Nichols, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, and Judges filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of David I. Bruck, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Former WV Delegate John Ellem, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Erwin Chemerinsky, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 27 2019||Brief amici curiae of Juvenile Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 28 2019||Record located on PACER (U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia and U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit). Sealed record received from the District Court (4 boxes).|
|Sep 11 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Sep 19 2019||Reply of petitioner Randall Mathena filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Richmond, Va.; and Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Danielle Spinelli, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 24 2020||Stipulation of Dismissal Under Rule 46.1 filed.|
|Feb 26 2020||Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.|
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.