|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1095||5th Cir.||Nov 30, 2015||Jan 25, 2016||9-0||Thomas||OT 2015|
Holding: 1) When a jury instruction adds an element to the charged crime and the government fails to object, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, rather than the elements set forth in the erroneous jury instruction; and (2) a defendant cannot successfully raise a statute-of-limitations bar for the first time on appeal.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 25, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 9 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 10, 2015)|
|Apr 2 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 11, 2015.|
|Apr 30 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 26, 2015.|
|May 22 2015||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jun 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.|
|Jun 2 2015||Reply of petitioner Michael Musacchio filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.|
|Jun 29 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 7 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 28, 2015.|
|Jul 7 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 13, 2015.|
|Aug 28 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 28 2015||Brief of petitioner Michael Musacchio filed.|
|Oct 9 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 30, 2015|
|Oct 13 2015||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Oct 19 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 27 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 12 2015||Reply of petitioner Michael Musacchio filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 30 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Erik S. Jaffe, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Roman Martinez, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 25 2016||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Feb 26 2016||Judgment Issued|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.