|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-339||4th Cir.||Mar 29, 2016||Jun 6, 2016||8-0||Kagan||OT 2015|
Holding: The Fourth Circuit's unwritten "special circumstances" exception, which can excuse an inmate's failure to comply with procedural requirements before challenging prison conditions, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 6, 2016. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 14 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 19, 2015)|
|Sep 23 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Oct 14 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 18, 2015.|
|Oct 19 2015||Brief amici curiae of West Virginia, and 21 Other States filed.|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief of respondent Shaidon Blake in opposition filed.|
|Nov 16 2015||Reply of petitioner Michael Ross filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 17 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.|
|Dec 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|Dec 11 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 15 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 27, 2016.|
|Jan 22 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including January 29, 2016.|
|Jan 22 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 3, 2016.|
|Jan 29 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 29, 2016|
|Jan 29 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 29 2016||Brief of petitioner Michael Ross filed.|
|Feb 5 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 5 2016||Brief amici curiae of West Virginia and 38 Other States filed.|
|Feb 8 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Feb 11 2016||Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Feb 18 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Maryland Southern Div. is electronic and located on PACER. Sealed records are also electronic, not on PACER.|
|Feb 23 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 1 2016||Proposal of counsel for respondent to lodge bound copies of non-record materials cited in respondent's brief on the merits.|
|Mar 3 2016||Brief of respondent Shaidon Blake filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 7 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Legal Aid Society of New York and Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Police Accountability Project and Human Rights Defense Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 17 2016||Proposal of counsel for petitioner to lodge copies of non-record materials cited in the reply brief on the merits.|
|Mar 18 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 21 2016||Reply of petitioner Michael Ross filed. (Distributed).|
|Mar 23 2016||The Clerk has approved respondent's lodging proposal. Copies of non-record material received and distributed.|
|Mar 24 2016||The Clerk has approved petitioner's lodging proposal. Copies of cited material received and distributed.|
|Mar 29 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md.; and Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 6 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part.|
|Jul 8 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.
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.