|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-9560||11th Cir.||Apr 23, 2019||Jun 21, 2019||7-2||Breyer||OT 2018|
Holding: In a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 21, 2019. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 21 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 26, 2018)|
|Jul 03 2018||Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.|
|Jul 12 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Jul 24 2018||Response Requested. (Due August 23, 2018)|
|Aug 10 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 23, 2018 to September 24, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 13 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 24, 2018.|
|Sep 17 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 24, 2018 to October 24, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Sep 18 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 24, 2018.|
|Oct 24 2018||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Nov 07 2018||Reply of petitioner Hamid Rehaif filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 08 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.|
|Dec 03 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 11 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jan 31 2019||Letter informing Clerk of joint briefing schedule agreed upon by parties. Petitioner will file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits on or before February 22, 2019. Respondent will file respondent's brief on the merits on or before Monday, March 25, 2019.|
|Feb 07 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Hamid Rehaif.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 23, 2019|
|Feb 22 2019||Brief of petitioner Hamid Rehaif filed.|
|Feb 22 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Hamid Rehaif.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center filed.|
|Mar 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 28 2019||Record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Apr 01 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Apr 01 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Everytown for Gun Safety filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2019||Reply of petitioner Hamid Rehaif filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 23 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Rosemary T. Cakmis, Orlando, Fla. For respondent: Allon Kedem, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 21 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 23 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In advance of tomorrow's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we asked experts and advocates on both sides of the abortion debate to weigh in on how the court should approach the case. You can read our full symposium here:
Symposium before oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...