|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-443||Tex. Crim. App.||Not Argued||Feb 19, 2019||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2018|
Holding: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded in a per curiam opinion on February 19, 2019. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 14 2018||Application (18A163) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 4, 2018 to November 3, 2018, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Aug 17 2018||Application (18A163) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 4, 2018.|
|Oct 04 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 8, 2018)|
|Nov 06 2018||Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.|
|Nov 07 2018||Motion For Leave to Intervene as a respondent filed by Attorney General of Texas.|
|Nov 08 2018||Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed.|
|Nov 08 2018||Brief amici curiae of Donald B. Ayer, et al. filed.|
|Nov 08 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.|
|Nov 19 2018||Reply of petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.|
|Nov 19 2018||Response to motion from petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.|
|Nov 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||Motion of Attorney General of Texas for leave to intervene as a respondent DENIED. The Court has considered this filing as an amicus brief.|
|Feb 19 2019||The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). The Chief Justice, concurring (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting (Detached Opinion).|
|Mar 25 2019||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 25 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.