|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.|
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Here’s @AHoweBlogger’s analysis on the Supreme Court’s major NCAA ruling today.
NCAA athletes win 9-0 on educational perks as Kavanaugh calls out ban on direct payments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday reshaped the relationship between universities and the athletes who play college sports. ...
SCOTUSblog is hiring!
We're seeking a new blog manager -- a fun and fast-paced role that includes writing articles, tracking statistics, managing the content on our site, and helping to plan and execute all our news coverage of the court.
SCOTUSblog is hiring a new blog manager - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog is seeking a new blog manager. We are looking for a smart, creative person who is fascinated by the ...
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
The third and final opinion of the day is in U.S. v. Arthrex. In a fragmented decision, the court holds that the appointment of administrative patent judges violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because they are not “inferior” officers. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.
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.