Navarette v. California

Editor's Note :

Navarette v. California

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 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

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-9490	Cal. App. 1st. Dist.	Jan 21, 2014 Tr.Aud.	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.

Opinion analysis: Big new role for anonymous tipsters (Lyle Denniston)
Argument recap: Pushing the hypotheticals (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Acting on a caller's tip (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – 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 February 15 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
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.
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- 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.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

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

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73