Paroline v. United States

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-8561	5th Cir.	Jan 22, 2014 Tr.Aud.	Apr 23, 2014	5-4	Kennedy	OT 2013

Holding: Restitution to the respondent, who was sexually abused as a young girl to produce child pornography, is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 only to the extent the defendant, who pleaded guilty to possessing images of child porn, including two images of the respondent, was the proximate cause of the victim's losses. Victims should be compensated and defendants should be held accountable for the impact of their conduct on those victims, but defendants should only be made liable for the consequences and gravity of their own conduct, not the conduct of others.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on April 23, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Dividing the duty to pay for child porn (Lyle Denniston)
Post-argument debate on Paroline (Lyle Denniston)
Court calls for new briefs on child porn (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
Argument recap: Sorting out the blame (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Paying a price for child porn (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jan 31 2013	Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 7, 2013)
Feb 27 2013	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 8, 2013.
Mar 20 2013	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 8, 2013, for all respondents.
Apr 24 2013	Response to petition from respondent Amy filed. (Printed Brief)
May 8 2013	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
May 8 2013	Supplemental brief of respondent Michael Wright filed. VIDED.
May 15 2013	Letter of May 15, 2013, from Solicitor General received. (VIDED)
May 20 2013	Reply of respondent Michael Wright filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
May 20 2013	Reply of petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline filed. (Distributed)
May 21 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 6, 2013.
Jun 10 2013	The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 1, 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.
Jun 10 2013	Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
Jun 17 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.
Jun 24 2013	Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner GRANTED. The order entered June 10, 2013, is vacated.
Jun 25 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.
Jun 27 2013	Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2259?.
Jul 19 2013	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline.
Jul 24 2013	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
Jul 26 2013	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 19, 2013.
Jul 26 2013	The time to file respondent United State's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 27, 2013.
Jul 26 2013	The time to file respondent Amy's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 13, 2013.
Aug 19 2013	Brief of respondent Michael Wright in support of petitioner filed.
Aug 19 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Two Volumes) (Statement of costs filed)
Aug 19 2013	Brief of petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline filed.
Sep 3 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for respondent Amy.
Sep 5 2013	Letter from counsel for Amy and Michael Wright received.
Sep 6 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Wright.
Sep 6 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party, or neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Sep 6 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for respondent United States.
Sep 27 2013	Brief of respondent United States filed.
Oct 7 2013	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Stanley G. Schneider, Esquire, of Houston, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Nov 4 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 22, 2014.
Nov 5 2013	CIRCULATED
Nov 13 2013	Brief of respondent Amy Unknown filed (Reprinted). (Distributed)
Nov 19 2013	Brief amicus curiae of American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children filed. (Distributed)
Nov 19 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Crime Victim Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 19 2013	Brief amici curiae of Women's and Children's Advocacy Project, and Justice for Children filed. (Distributed)
Nov 19 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed. (Distributed)
Nov 19 2013	Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by Professors Adam Lamparello and Charles McClean in support of neither party. (Distributed).
Nov 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National Center for Missing and Exploited Children filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of "Vicky" and "Andy" filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of ECPAT International filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence Against Children filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of National Association to Protect Children filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Washington, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Crime Victim Law Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 21 2013	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent United States.
Dec 9 2013	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
Dec 9 2013	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Professors Adam Lamparello, and Charles McClean in support of neither party out of time DENIED.
Dec 12 2013	Reply of petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline filed. (Distributed)
Dec 13 2013	Application (13A612) to extend the time to file the reply brief on the merits of the United States from December 13, 2013 to December 18, 2013, submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 13 2013	Application (13A612) granted by Justice Scalia extending the time to file until December 18, 2013.
Dec 18 2013	Reply of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Dec 18 2013	Proposal from the Solicitor General to lodge copies of a spreadsheet referenced in their reply brief on the merits.
Dec 19 2013	Record received from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. The record is electronic and located on PACER.
Dec 23 2013	Lodging proposal approved.
Dec 23 2013	20 copies of a spreadsheet lodged by the Solicitor General.
Jan 22 2014	Argued. For petitioner: Stanley G. Schneider, Houston, Tex. For respondent United States in support of petitioner: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, D. C. For respondent Amy: Paul G. Cassell, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jan 29 2014	Letter from counsel for the petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2014	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by respondent Amy Unknown.
Feb 19 2014	Response of United States to respondent Amy Unknown's motion to file a supplemental brief after argument.
Feb 21 2014	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by respondent Amy Unknown GRANTED. The other parties may file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words each, addressing the effect of our decision in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. __ (2014), on this case, on or before Friday, March 7, 2014
Mar 7 2014	Supplemental brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Mar 7 2014	Supplemental brief of petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline filed. (Distributed)
Apr 23 2014	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
May 27 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little
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 released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- 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.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

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

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Paroline v. United States

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 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