|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-280||La.||Oct 13, 2015||Jan 25, 2016||6-3||Kennedy||OT 2015|
Holding: 1) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a state supreme court correctly refused to give retroactive effect to the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles; and (2) Miller announced a new substantive rule that, under the Constitution, is retroactive in cases on state collateral review.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on January 25, 2016. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 5 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 9, 2014)|
|Oct 9 2014||Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.|
|Oct 22 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.|
|Nov 3 2014||Response Requested . (Due December 3, 2014)|
|Dec 3 2014||Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.|
|Dec 10 2014||Reply of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed.|
|Dec 17 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Feb 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.|
|Feb 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2015.|
|Mar 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.|
|Mar 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Do we have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012)?"|
|Mar 30 2015||Richard Bernstein, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, against this Courts jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012). The brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is to be filed on or before Wednesday, June 10, 2015. The brief of petitioner is to be filed on or before Friday, July 10, 2015. The brief of respondent is to be filed on or before Monday, August 10, 2015. Reply briefs are to be filed on or before Wednesday, September 9, 2015.|
|May 21 2015||The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including June 16, 2015.|
|May 21 2015||The time to file petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2015.|
|Jun 5 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 24, 2015.|
|Jun 16 2015||Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.|
|Jul 1 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 2 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 6 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 22 2015||Brief of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Louisiana filed.|
|Jul 28 2015||Brief amici curiae of Certain Family Members of Victims Killed by Youths filed.|
|Jul 28 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Juvenile Court Judges filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amici curiae of Equal Justice Initiative on Behalf of Dozens Sentenced to Die in Prison When They Were Children filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in support of jurisdiction filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amici curiae of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., et al. filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amici curiae of Charles Houston Institute for Race and Justice, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amici curiae of Northwestern University School of Law's Children and Family Justice Center and Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, et al. filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Douglas A. Berman filed.|
|Aug 12 2015||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.|
|Aug 12 2015||Reply briefs are to be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.|
|Aug 17 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 19 2015||Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument filed by the parties.|
|Aug 24 2015||Brief of respondent Louisiana filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of Michigan and 15 Other States filed (Reprinted). (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of Becky Wilson and the National Association of Victims of Juvenile Murderers filed.|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amici curiae of National District Attorneys Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 14 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Sep 14 2015||Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument GRANTED and the time is divided as follows: 15 minutes for the Court-appointed amici curiae, 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for respondent. The Court-appointed amici curiae and petitioner will each be permitted to reserve time for rebuttal.|
|Sep 22 2015||Record received from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. (1 Box)|
|Sep 23 2015||Reply of petitioner Henry Montgomery filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 23 2015||Reply brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 13 2015||Argued. For the Court-appointed amicus curiae: Richard D. Bernstein, Washington, D. C. For petitioner: Mark D. Plaisance, Thibodaux, La.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: S. Kyle Duncan, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 25 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Feb 26 2016||Judgment Issued|
|Feb 26 2016||Mandate Issued|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.