|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
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...