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

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
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 will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- 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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 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—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Moore v. Texas

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award