|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-930||9th Cir.||Oct 9, 2012||Jan 8, 2013||9-0||Thomas||OT 2012|
Holding: 18 U.S.C. § 3599 does not provide a state prisoner with the right to suspend his federal habeas proceedings when he is adjudged incompetent.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 8, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 18 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2011)|
|Feb 10 2011||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 25, 2011.|
|Feb 21 2011||Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed.|
|Apr 25 2011||Brief of respondent Ernest Valencia Gonzales in opposition filed.|
|May 9 2011||Reply of petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections filed. (Distributed)|
|May 10 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2011.|
|May 31 2011||The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Feb 9 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 20 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2012.|
|Mar 14 2012||Supplemental brief of respondent Ernest Valencia Gonzales filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 19 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 20 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 25, 2012.|
|Apr 20 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 20, 2012.|
|May 25 2012||Brief of petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections filed.|
|May 25 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.|
|May 31 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Voice for Crime Victims filed.|
|Jun 1 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed (also in 11-218)|
|Jun 1 2012||Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed (also in 11-218).|
|Jun 11 2012||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jul 20 2012||Brief of respondent Ernest Valencia Gonzales filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, October 9, 2012|
|Jul 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 25 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 26 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 box)|
|Jul 27 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. (also in 11-218)|
|Jul 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Retired Federal Judges filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jul 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Psychiatric Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jul 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 27 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 2 2012||Record received from U.S.D.C. for District of Arizona. (3 boxes)|
|Aug 13 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Aug 20 2012||Reply of petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 9 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners in Nos. 11-218 & 10-930: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Leticia Marquez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tucson, Ariz.|
|Jan 8 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. (Decided together with No. 11-218)|
|Feb 11 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
Released today: annual financial disclosures for eight of the nine justices. Key takeaways: substantial book-royalty income for Sotomayor and Gorsuch; reduced travel reimbursements across the board during the pandemic.
Full story from @AHoweBlogger:
Less travel, plenty of royalties for justices in 2020 - SCOTUSblog
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in an unusual source: the justices’ 2020 financial disclosur...
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.