Millbrook v. United States

Breaking News :

Millbrook v. United States

Academic highlight: The states arguing as amici curiae in the Supreme Court – Dan Schweitzer

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Ask the author: “So Long, Earl” – Andrew Hamm

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

May 2019

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of May 16, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-10362	3d Cir.	Feb 19, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Mar 27, 2013	9-0	Thomas	OT 2012

Holding: The law enforcement proviso to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to all the activities of law enforcement officers within the scope of their employment, not just to their investigative or law enforcement activities.

Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 27, 2013.

Argument recap: Trying to make the text make sense (Kevin Russell)
Argument preview: Examining the scope of the federal government’s liability for law enforcement abuses (Kevin Russell)
The government switches position (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
May 10 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 18, 2012)
Jun 18 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 18, 2012.
Jul 11 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 17, 2012.
Aug 17 2012	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Aug 30 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Sep 25 2012	Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether 28 U.S.C. Sec.1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to "execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.
Oct 04 2012	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Kim Millbrook. (Distributed)
Oct 09 2012	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED and it is ordered that Christopher J. Paolella, Esquire, of New York, New York, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Nov 06 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 30, 2012.
Nov 09 2012	Letter of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30 2012	Brief of respondent United States supporting reversal and remand filed.
Nov 30 2012	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Nov 30 2012	Brief of petitioner Kim Millbrook filed.
Nov 30 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Dec 03 2012	Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
Dec 07 2012	The time to file the brief of Court-Appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 11, 2013.
Dec 07 2012	Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 07 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Lewisburg Prison Project filed.
Dec 07 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.
Dec 18 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 19, 2013.
Jan 04 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jan 11 2013	Record from U.S.C.A. for Third Circuit and U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is electronic.
Jan 11 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Court-Appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument out-of-time filed.
Feb 11 2013	Reply of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2013	Reply of petitioner Kim Millbrook filed. (Distributed)
Feb 15 2013	Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General out-of-time GRANTED.
Feb 19 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Christopher J. Paolella, New York, N. Y. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent in support of reversal and remand: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Washington, D. C.
Mar 27 2013	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Apr 29 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: The states arguing as amici curiae in the Supreme Court – Dan Schweitzer

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Ask the author: “So Long, Earl” – Andrew Hamm
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their May 23 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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 Decisions
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions
Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

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	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

30
Conference