|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-797||Tex. Crim. App.||Nov 29, 2016||Mar 28, 2017||5-3||Ginsburg||OT 2016|
Holding: By rejecting the habeas court's application of current medical diagnostic standards and by following the standard under Ex parte Briseno, including the nonclinical Briseno factors, the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals does not comport with the Eighth Amendment and Supreme Court precedents.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on March 28, 2017. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 15 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2016)|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, et al. filed.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of International Organizations Interested in Medical Expertise, Psychiatry and Criminal Justice filed.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of International Law and Human Rights Institutes, Societies, Practitioners and Scholars filed.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, et al. filed.|
|Jan 20 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 18, 2016.|
|Feb 18 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 18, 2016.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.|
|Apr 1 2016||Reply of petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.|
|Apr 6 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 25 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|Apr 27 2016||Record Requested .|
|May 6 2016||Record received from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The record is electronic.|
|May 9 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 12, 2016.|
|May 16 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2016.|
|May 23 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2016.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.|
|Jun 6 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jun 14 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 28 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 11 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 28, 2016.|
|Jul 11 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 6, 2016.|
|Jul 28 2016||Brief of petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.|
|Jul 28 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Aug 3 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of International Organizations and Individuals Interested in Medical Expertise and Psychiatry filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Assocation, et al. filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, et al. filed.|
|Aug 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Constitution Project filed.|
|Sep 6 2016||Brief of respondent Texas filed.|
|Sep 13 2016||Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Sep 13 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Oct 6 2016||Proposal of counsel for petitioner to lodge copies of opinions, cited in the reply brief, which are not available electronically.|
|Oct 6 2016||Reply of petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 29, 2016|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 1 2016||Record requested from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.|
|Nov 4 2016||Record received from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is electronic.|
|Nov 29 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Clifford M. Sloan, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.|
|Mar 28 2017||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.|
|May 1 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|May 1 2017||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.