|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-694||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Jun 3, 2013||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2012|
Holding: In his trial for rape, Jackson sought to present evidence to show that the victim had previously reported that he had assaulted her. The state supreme court held that the evidence was properly excluded, but in his federal habeas proceedings the Ninth Circuit ordered the state to either retry or release Jackson, on the ground that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right to present a defense, and that the state supreme court’s contrary decision was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state supreme court’s application of the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents was in fact reasonable when no prior decision by the Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right.
Judgment: Granted, reversed and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 3, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 3 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 7, 2013)|
|Jan 7 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 6, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||Brief amici curiae of Michigan, and 14 Other States filed.|
|Feb 5 2013||Brief of respondent Calvin O'Neil Jackson in opposition filed.|
|Feb 5 2013||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Calvin O'Neil Jackson.|
|Feb 14 2013||Reply of petitioners Nevada, et al. filed.|
|Feb 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 15 2013||Record Requested .|
|Mar 15 2013||Record received from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (available on PACER).|
|Mar 18 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013.|
|Mar 19 2013||Record received from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (one box).|
|Mar 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Apr 1 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Apr 15 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 19, 2013.|
|Apr 22 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 26, 2013.|
|Apr 29 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 23, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013.|
|Jun 3 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jun 7 2013||Record returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (1 box).|
|Jul 5 2013||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.