McFadden v. United States

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-378	4th Cir.	Apr 21, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jun 18, 2015	9-0	Thomas	OT 2014

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Holding: Section 841(a)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act, which makes it unlawful knowingly to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, requires the government to establish that the defendant knew he was dealing with a substance regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 18, 2015. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: The required mens rea for federal narcotics offenses is getting clearer (Rory Little)
A “view” from the Courtroom: A bonus day for opinions (Mark Walsh)
Argument analysis: Is the government pushing a bridge too far regarding federal drug prosecutions? (Rory Little)
Argument preview: The tricky mens rea requirements for federal narcotics cases (Rory Little)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Aug 18 2014	Application (14A199) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 15, 2014 to October 14, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Aug 21 2014	Application (14A199) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 14, 2014.
Oct 2 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2014)
Oct 30 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 3, 2014.
Nov 20 2014	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 15, 2014.
Dec 15 2014	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. (To be reprinted).
Dec 17 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.
Dec 19 2014	Reply of petitioner Stephen Dominick McFadden filed. (Distributed)
Jan 12 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.
Jan 16 2015	Petition GRANTED.
Mar 2 2015	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Mar 2 2015	Brief of petitioner Stephen Dominick McFadden filed.
Mar 5 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Mar 6 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 21, 2015
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amici curiae of Expert Forensic Scientists filed.
Mar 16 2015	CIRCULATED.
Mar 17 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.
Mar 17 2015	Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also sent electronically from the 4th Circuit a SEALED Appendix.
Apr 1 2015	Brief of respondent the United States filed. (Distributed)
Apr 10 2015	Reply of petitioner Stephen Dominick McFadden filed. (Distributed)
Apr 21 2015	Argued. For petitioner: Kevin K. Russell, Bethesda, Md. For respondent: Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 18 2015	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Jul 20 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell

Relist Watch – John Elwood
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
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- 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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 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—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

McFadden v. United States

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award