|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1117||6th Cir.||Mar 4, 2014||May 27, 2014||9-0||Alito||OT 2013|
Holding: The use of deadly force by police officers in this case – firing multiple rounds into a car during a high-speed chase, contributing to the death of the driver and a passenger – was not unreasonable given the threat to public safety posed by the driver's reckless behavior. As such, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. But in any event, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 27, 2014. Justice Ginsburg joined as to the judgment and Parts I, II, and III– C, and Justice Breyer joined except as to Part III–B–2.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 12 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 15, 2013)|
|Apr 30 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 8 2013||Response Requested . (Due June 7, 2013)|
|Jun 7 2013||Brief of respondent Whitne Rickard, a Minor Child, Individually, and as Surviving Daughter of Donald Rickard, Deceased, By and Through Her Mother Samantha Rickard, as Parent and Next Friend in opposition filed.|
|Jun 19 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Aug 13 2013||Record Requested .|
|Aug 14 2013||Record received from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
|Aug 21 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Aug 21 2013||Reply of petitioners Officer Vance Plumhoff, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 22 2013||Record Requested .|
|Sep 27 2013||Record received from the United States District Court Western District of Tennessee (3 DVDs).|
|Oct 2 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 18, 2013.|
|Oct 28 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 1, 2013.|
|Nov 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 8, 2013.|
|Nov 12 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 15, 2013.|
|Nov 15 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 25 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 4, 2014|
|Dec 17 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, the record is electronic.|
|Dec 30 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 30 2013||Brief of petitioners Officer Vance Plumhoff, et al. filed.|
|Dec 31 2013||Record received from U.S.D.C. Western District of Tennessee Western Division. (1 Box)|
|Jan 6 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jan 6 2014||Brief amici curiae of Ohio and 21 Other States filed.|
|Jan 6 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 7 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Western District of Tennessee (Memphis)|
|Jan 9 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 29 2014||Brief of respondent Whitne Rickard, a Minor Child, Individually, and as Surviving Daughter of Donald Rickard, Deceased, By and Through Her Mother Samantha Rickard, as Parent and Next Friend filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 31 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 4 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Jonathan R. Nash filed. (Distributed).|
|Feb 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 5 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Police Accountability Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2014||Reply of petitioners Officer Vance Plumhoff, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 4 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Michael Mosley, North Little Rock, Ark.; and John F. Bash, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Gary K. Smith, Memphis, Tenn.|
|May 27 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to the judgment and Parts I, II, and III-C, and in which Breyer, J., joined except as to Part III-B-2.|
|Jun 30 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 2 2014||Record Returned for U.S.D.C. Western District of Tennessee.|
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
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.