|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1425||Mo.||Jan 9, 2013||Apr 17, 2013||5-4||Sotomayor||OT 2012|
Holding: In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 17, 2013. Justice Sotomayor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and IV, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kagan joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C and III, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer and Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 22 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 25, 2012)|
|Jun 8 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 25, 2012.|
|Jul 25 2012||Brief of respondent Tyler G. McNeely in opposition filed.|
|Aug 8 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 14 2012||Reply of petitioner Missouri filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 9, 2013|
|Nov 5 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 9 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)|
|Nov 9 2012||Brief of petitioner Missouri filed.|
|Nov 13 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 16 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amici curiae of National District Attorneys Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amici curiae of Delaware, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 16 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief of respondent Tyler G. McNeely filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 10 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 14 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 17 2012||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 17 2012||Brief amici curiae of National College for DUI Defense, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 20 2012||Record received from The Supreme Court State of Missouri. (1 Box)|
|Jan 2 2013||Reply of petitioner Missouri filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 4 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jan 9 2013||Argued. For petitioner: John N. Koester, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Mo.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Steven R. Shapiro, New York, N. Y.|
|Apr 17 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and IV, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C and III, in which Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Breyer and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|May 20 2013||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 5 2013||Record returned to Supreme Court of Missouri.|
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...