|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1174||9th Cir.||Nov 26, 2018||May 28, 2019||6-3||Roberts||OT 2018|
Holding: Because police officers had probable cause to arrest Russell Bartlett, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 28, 2019. Justice Thomas, who joined the opinion of the Supreme Court except as to Part II–D, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 16 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2018)|
|Apr 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018.|
|Apr 12 2018||Response Requested. (Due May 14, 2018)|
|May 14 2018||Brief of respondent Russell P. Bartlett in support filed.|
|May 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.|
|Jun 18 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/21/2018.|
|Jun 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2018.|
|Jun 28 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 25 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the opening briefs on the merits filed.|
|Aug 08 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2018. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 2, 2018.|
|Aug 09 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Luis A. Nieves, et al..|
|Aug 20 2018||Brief of petitioners Luis A. Nieves, et al. filed.|
|Aug 20 2018||Joint appendix filed (1 volume). (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 20 2018||Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by respondent Russell P. Bartlett.|
|Aug 20 2018||Joint appendix (volume II under sealed) filed . (Distributed)|
|Aug 24 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Russell P. Bartlett|
|Aug 27 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States of America filed.|
|Aug 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, National Sheriffs’ Association filed.|
|Aug 27 2018||Brief amici curiae of The District of Columbia, et al. filed.|
|Sep 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.|
|Oct 02 2018||Brief of respondent Russell P. Bartlett filed.|
|Oct 02 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 26, 2018|
|Oct 09 2018||Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amici curiae of Three Individual Activists filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amici curiae of The First Amendment Foundation and Fane Lozman filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Police Accountability Project, et al. filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Press Photographers Association, et al. filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Oct 15 2018||Record requested from U.S.C.D. 9th Circuit.|
|Oct 18 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit (1 envelope of restricted material). The public record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 19 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 26 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 01 2018||Reply of petitioners Luis A. Nieves, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 26 2018||Argued. For petitioners: Dario Borghesan, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, Alaska; and Jeffrey B. Wall, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Zane D. Wilson, Fairbanks, Alaska.|
|Apr 26 2019||Record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Alaska (Anchorage) is electronic. One part of the record is Sealed|
|May 28 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined except as to Part II-D. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 01 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.