|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-606||Colo.||Oct 11, 2016||Mar 6, 2017||5-3||Kennedy||OT 2016|
Holding: When a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on March 6, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 31 2015||Application (15A265) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 13, 2015 to November 12, 2015, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Sep 10 2015||Application (15A265) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until November 12, 2015.|
|Nov 10 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2015)|
|Nov 12 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 16 2015||Waiver of right of respondent Colorado to respond filed.|
|Dec 02 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 08 2015||Response Requested.(Due January 7, 2016)|
|Dec 08 2015||Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed.|
|Dec 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 10 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Law filed.|
|Dec 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law filed.|
|Dec 21 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.|
|Jan 07 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jan 07 2016||Brief amici curiae of Retired Judges filed.|
|Feb 19 2016||Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed.|
|Mar 07 2016||Reply of petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez filed.|
|Mar 09 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016.|
|Mar 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 1, 2016.|
|Apr 04 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 23, 2016.|
|Apr 22 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2016.|
|May 04 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 11 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 23 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jun 23 2016||Brief of petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez filed.|
|Jun 24 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The United Mexican States filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Law filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Cedric Merlin Powell filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amici curiae of the Hispanic National Bar Association, et al. filed.|
|Jun 30 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law filed.|
|Jul 13 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Colorado.|
|Aug 19 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 29 2016||Brief of respondent Colorado filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 06 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Colorado District Attorneys' Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2016||Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 14 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Colorado. 1 Envelope partially SEALED and electronic.|
|Sep 19 2016||Reply of petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 26 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 11 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Mar 06 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J. and Thomas, J., joined.|
|Apr 07 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 07 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Aug 07 2017||Record from the Supreme Court of Colorado has been returned.|
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 ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.