|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-5294||11th Cir.||Apr 24, 2017||Jun 19, 2017||5-4||Breyer||OT 2016|
Holding: The Alabama courts' determination that James McWilliams received all the assistance to which Ake v. Oklahoma entitled him -- when certain threshold criteria are met, access to a state-provided mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively "conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense" -- was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit should determine on remand whether the Alabama courts' error had the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" required to warrant a grant of habeas relief under Davis v. Ayala, specifically considering whether access to the type of meaningful assistance in evaluating, preparing, and presenting the defense that Ake requires could have made a difference.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 19, 2017. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 16 2016||Application (15A978) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 16, 2016 to July 15, 2016, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Mar 24 2016||Application (15A978) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until July 15, 2016.|
|Jul 15 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 19, 2016)|
|Aug 09 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 19, 2016.|
|Aug 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Constitution Project filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 19, 2016.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief of respondents Jefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 28 2016||Reply of petitioner James E. McWilliams filed.|
|Nov 03 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 17 2016||Record Requested.|
|Nov 22 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit. (1-Box)|
|Dec 06 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Alabama (4 boxes).|
|Dec 08 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 13 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 17 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the respondents.|
|Jan 27 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner James E. McWilliams.|
|Feb 10 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 15 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.|
|Feb 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 24, 2017|
|Feb 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of petitioner James E. McWilliams filed.|
|Mar 06 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED, and Stephen B. Bright, Esquire, of Atlanta, Georgia, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Mar 06 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Mar 06 2017||Brief amici curiae of American Psychiatric Association, et al. filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 29 2017||Brief of respondents Jefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 17 2017||Reply of petitioner James E. McWilliams filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 24 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Stephen B. Bright, Atlanta, Ga. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondents: Andrew L. Brasher, Solicitor General, Montgomery, Ala.|
|Jun 19 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 07 2017||Record returned to the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit (1 Box).|
|Jul 07 2017||Record returned to the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Alabama (4 boxes).|
|Jul 21 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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...
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.