|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...