|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-9490||Cal. App. 1st. Dist.||Jan 21, 2014||Apr 22, 2014||5-4||Thomas||OT 2013|
Holding: Under the totality of the circumstances, the traffic stop precipitated by an anonymous but reliable tip to 911 complied with the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on April 22, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 29 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 1, 2013)|
|Apr 8 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Apr 24 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 3, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.|
|May 31 2013||Petitioners complied with order of May 13, 2013.|
|Jun 5 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 11 2013||Response Requested . (Due July 11, 2013)|
|Jul 9 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 12, 2013.|
|Aug 9 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Aug 16 2013||Reply of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 1 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Oct 10 2013||Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis filed by petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette.|
|Oct 10 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette.|
|Oct 28 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 1, 2013.|
|Nov 4 2013||Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis GRANTED.|
|Nov 4 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners GRANTED. Paul Kleven, Esquire, of Berkeley, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioners in this case.|
|Nov 4 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT Tuesday, January 21, 2014.|
|Nov 15 2013||Joint appendix filed.|
|Nov 15 2013||Brief of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed.|
|Nov 21 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 21 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 16 2013||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Florida, 31 Other States, and the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2013||Record Received from U.S.C.A. 1st Appellate District. The record is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Jan 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jan 13 2014||Reply of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Paul R. Kleven, Berkeley, Cal. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Jeffrey M. K. Laurence, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, Cal.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Apr 22 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|May 27 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.