Millbrook v. United States

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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

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 4 2012	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Kim Millbrook. (Distributed)
Oct 9 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 6 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 9 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 3 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 7 2012	The time to file the brief of Court-Appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 11, 2013.
Dec 7 2012	Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 7 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Lewisburg Prison Project filed.
Dec 7 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.
Dec 18 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 19, 2013.
Jan 4 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

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
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 January 18 conference on Tuesday; the justices granted New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinion in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- 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.
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 Opinions	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

Breaking News :

Millbrook v. United States

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

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