Moore v. Texas

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-797	Tex. Crim. App.	Nov 29, 2016 Tr.Aud.	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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Death-penalty symposium: A court increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty (Stephen McAllister)
Death-penalty symposium: In search of predictability (Joseph Tartakovsky)
Death-penalty symposium: Supreme Court marks time for a term on capital punishment (Kent Scheidegger)
Death-penalty symposium: Incremental victories for capital defendants but no sweeping change (Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker)
Death-penalty symposium: Even with this conservative court, some progressive wins remain possible (Brianne Gorod)
Death-penalty symposium: The court keeps treating a fatally diseased death penalty (Brian Stull)
Death-penalty symposium: Evolving standards for "evolving standards" (Dominic Draye)
Opinion analysis: A victory for intellectually disabled inmates in Texas (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Texas inmate seems likely to prevail in death-row disability challenge (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Court returns, again, to the death penalty and the intellectually disabled (Amy Howe)
Court reopens race and death penalty issues (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon – Evan Lee

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 18 conference on Monday; the justices agreed to decide Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., and Barton v. Barr. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston.
On Tuesday, the justices dismissed Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian as improvidently granted.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinion in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday morning, the justices heard oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York. On Tuesday afternoon, they heard argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices meet for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- City of Newport Beach, California v. Vos (1) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody; (2) whether, under the Fourth Amendment “totality of the circumstances” analysis for assessing the reasonableness of force used against a suspect who attacks law enforcement officers, a court must take into account allegedly unreasonable police conduct that took place before the use of force, but foreseeably created the need to use that force; and (3) whether, under the Fourth Amendment’s analysis for use of force, a law enforcement officer’s interest in using deadly force against a suspect threatening an officer’s life is diminished if the assailant is mentally ill.
- Dahne v. Richey Whether prison inmates have a First Amendment right to include threatening, abusive and irrelevant language in grievances.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489) Opinions	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

Breaking News :

Moore v. Texas

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Argument analysis: Court leaning toward requiring the government to prove that a felon in possession knew he was a felon – Evan Lee

A “view” from the courtroom: Counting to five – Mark Walsh

Argument analysis: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census – Amy Howe

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 26, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award