|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1109||Ariz.||Dec 11, 2019||Feb 25, 2020||5-4||Kavanaugh||OT 2019|
Holding: When a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating ecidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on February 25, 2020. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 07 2018||Application (18A580) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 21, 2019 to February 21, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Dec 10 2018||Application (18A580) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 21, 2019.|
|Feb 21 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 28, 2019)|
|Mar 07 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 28, 2019 to April 29, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 11 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 29, 2019.|
|Mar 28 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Phillips Black, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Promise of Justice Initiative, et al. filed.|
|Mar 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Arizona Capital Representation Project and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed.|
|Apr 25 2019||Brief of respondent State of Arizona in opposition filed.|
|May 09 2019||Reply of petitioner James Erin McKinney filed.|
|May 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.|
|Jun 03 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.|
|Jun 10 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 18 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jun 25 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, State of Arizona.|
|Jun 26 2019||Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 14, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 3, 2019.|
|Jun 26 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, James Erin McKinney.|
|Jul 10 2019||Joint motion for a further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 17 2019||Joint motion to extend the time to file to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including August 21, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including October 17, 2019.|
|Aug 21 2019||Brief of petitioner James Erin McKinney filed.|
|Aug 21 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Capital Punishment Center of The University of Texas School of Law filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Advocates for Human Rights and The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Capital Representation Project filed.|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 11, 2019.|
|Sep 24 2019||Motion of respondent for a further extension of time to file the brief on the merits filed.|
|Sep 26 2019||Motion of respondent to further extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits is granted and the time is extended to and including October 25, 2019.|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Arizona.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 25 2019||Brief of respondent State of Arizona filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Voice for Crime Victims filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 01 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Utah, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 01 2019||Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed by Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.|
|Nov 14 2019||The record received from the Supreme Court of Arizona the record is complete. A portion of the record is Sealed. (2 Boxes)|
|Nov 18 2019||Motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and for divided argument DENIED.|
|Nov 25 2019||Reply of petitioner James Erin McKinney filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 11 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Oramel H. Skinner, Solicitor General, Phoenix, Ariz.|
|Feb 25 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 30 2020||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 30 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jun 18 2020||The record from the Supreme Court of Arizona has been returned.|
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.