|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-10362||3d Cir.||Feb 19, 2013||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
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
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.