|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1194||N.C.||Feb 27, 2017||Jun 19, 2017||8-0||Kennedy||OT 2016|
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner at the cert stage in this case.
Holding: The North Carolina statute, which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages," impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 19, 2017. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 15 2016||Application (15A757) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 4, 2016 to March 21, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jan 20 2016||Application (15A757) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 21, 2016.|
|Mar 21 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 22, 2016)|
|Apr 6 2016||Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina to respond filed.|
|Apr 19 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 12, 2016.|
|Apr 20 2016||Brief amici curiae of Profs. Ashutosh Bhagwat, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 28 2016||Response Requested . (Due May 31, 2016)|
|May 26 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 30, 2016.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief of respondent North Carolina in opposition filed.|
|Jul 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.|
|Jul 22 2016||Reply of petitioner Lester Gerard Packingham filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 3 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.|
|Oct 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 14, 2016.|
|Oct 24 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2016.|
|Oct 28 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 16 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 18 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 15, 2016.|
|Dec 12 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Dec 15 2016||Brief of petitioner Lester Gerard Packingham filed.|
|Dec 15 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, February 27, 2017.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. filed.|
|Dec 30 2016||Record requested from the Supreme Court of North Carolina|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief of respondent North Carolina filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 23 2017||Brief amici curiae of State of Louisiana,and Twelve Other States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amici curiae of Stop Child Predators, and Shared Hope International filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amici curiae of Council of State Governments, et al. filed.|
|Jan 31 2017||Record received from the Supreme Court of North Carolina and North Carolina Court of Appeals. The record is electronic.|
|Feb 16 2017||Reply of petitioner Lester Gerard Packingham filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2017||Argued. For petitioner: David T. Goldberg, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Robert C. Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, N. C.|
|Jun 19 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jul 21 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 21 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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.
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.