|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-5924||La. Ct. App.||Oct 7, 2019||Apr 20, 2020||6-3||Gorsuch||OT 2019|
Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Judgment: Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on April 20, 2020. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh joined; an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined; and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. Justice kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, and in which Justice Kagan joined as to all but Part III–D.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 07 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 11, 2018)|
|Sep 20 2018||Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.|
|Sep 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.|
|Oct 09 2018||Response Requested. (Due November 8, 2018)|
|Nov 08 2018||Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.|
|Nov 27 2018||Reply of petitioner Evangelisto Ramos filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Feb 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Mar 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.|
|Mar 18 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Mar 22 2019||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Evangelisto Ramos.|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 11, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2019.|
|Apr 10 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.|
|Apr 29 2019||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED, and G. Ben Cohen, Esq., of New Orleans, Louisiana, is appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.|
|Jun 11 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 11 2019||Brief of petitioner Evangelisto Ramos filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors and Social Scientists filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Amicus brief of Prominent Current and Former State Executive and Judicial Officers, Law Professors, and the OCDLA not accepted for filing. (June 20, 2019)(Corrected version submitted)|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of Prominent Current and Former State Executive and Judicial Officers, Law Professors, and the OCDLA filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of New York et al. filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of Innocence Project New Orleans and The Innocence Project filed.|
|Jun 18 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation of Louisiana filed.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 7, 2019.|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 16 2019||Brief of respondent Louisiana filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit.|
|Aug 23 2019||Amicus brief of State of Oregon not accepted for filing. (August 26, 2019) (Duplicate efiling)|
|Aug 23 2019||Brief amicus curiae of State of Oregon filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 23 2019||Brief amici curiae of State of Utah, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2019||Reply of petitioner Evangelisto Ramos filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 20 2019||Record received from the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit (1 box of filings, 1 box of posterboard exhibits, and 2 CD's of exhibits in electronic format).|
|Oct 07 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La.|
|Apr 20 2020||Judgment REVERSED. Gorsuch, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. Kavanaugh, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined, and in which Kagan, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.|
|May 22 2020||MANDATE ISSUED|
|May 22 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
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.