|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-378||4th Cir.||Apr 21, 2015||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.