|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-6210||Wis.||Apr 23, 2019||Jun 27, 2019||5-4||Alito||OT 2018|
Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment – affirming the drunk-driving convictions of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 27, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 01 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2018)|
|Oct 16 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 5, 2018 to December 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 5, 2018.|
|Dec 05 2018||Brief of respondent Wisconsin in opposition filed.|
|Dec 19 2018||Reply of petitioner Gerald P. Mitchell filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 23, 2019|
|Feb 18 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Gerald P. Mitchell.|
|Feb 18 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Wisconsin|
|Feb 25 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Feb 25 2019||Brief of petitioner Gerald P. Mitchell filed.|
|Feb 26 2019||Brief amicus curiae of California DUI Lawyers Association filed.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National College for DUI Defense, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Supplemental proof of service of amicus California DUI Lawyers Association filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Rutherford Institute and the Cato Institute filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of The DKT Liberty Project, Reason Foundation, and The Due Process Institute filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amici curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Wisconsin filed.|
|Mar 04 2019||Brief amicus curiae of DUI Defense Lawyers Association filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 27 2019||Brief of respondent Wisconsin filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of League of Wisconsin Municipalities, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Colorado, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 16 2019||Reply of petitioner Gerald P. Mitchell filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 23 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Andrew R. Hinkel, Assistant State Public Defender, Madison, Wis. For respondent: Hannah S. Jurss, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, Wis.|
|Jun 27 2019||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 29 2019||MANDATE SSUED.|
|Jul 29 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
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
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.