|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-5991||9th Cir.||Oct 4, 2016||Dec 12, 2016||8-0||Breyer||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The defendant's arguments that subsection (1) of the bank fraud statute, which covers schemes to deprive a bank of money in a customer's deposit account, does not apply to him because he intended to cheat only a bank depositor, not a bank, are unpersuasive; and (2) with regard to the parties' dispute over whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that a scheme to defraud a bank must be one to deceive the bank or deprive it of something of value, instead of one to deceive and deprive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is left to determine whether that question was properly presented and if so, whether the instruction given is lawful, and, if not, whether any error was harmless.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on December 12, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 4 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 9, 2015)|
|Sep 30 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 9, 2015.|
|Nov 6 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 9, 2015.|
|Dec 4 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 27, 2016.|
|Jan 28 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 10, 2016.|
|Mar 8 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Mar 22 2016||Reply of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 24 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016.|
|Apr 18 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 25 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|May 13 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 27, 2016.|
|May 13 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 15, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 27 2016||Brief of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed.|
|Jul 5 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 13 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 4, 2016.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jul 23 2016||The record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of a SEALED document that is electronic.|
|Jul 23 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California (Western Div. - Los Angeles) is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of a SEALED document that is electronic.|
|Aug 15 2016||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Aug 19 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Sep 14 2016||Reply of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 4 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Koren L. Bell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Dec 12 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 13 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Stephen Breyer wrote major opinions favoring abortion rights, demarcating the separation of powers, and rejecting a challenge to Obamacare. In his later years, he questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty. Our retrospective, via @AHoweBlogger:
Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term - SCOTUSblog
Justice Stephen Breyer, a devoted pragmatist and the senior member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, will r...
BREAKING: Per @PeteWilliamsNBC of @NBCNews, Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring. The 83-year-old Breyer, a pragmatic liberal who has served on the Supreme Court for nearly 28 years, is expected to tell the White House imminently of his intention to step down.
NEWS: Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire, @PeteWilliamsNBC reporting live on @NBCNews Special Report
A rule that allows SCOTUS to hear cases before appeals courts weigh in used to be very rare. But in the past three years, it's become far more common. And the justices haven't said why.
@steve_vladeck explains the resurgent writ of "cert before judgment."
The rise of certiorari before judgment - SCOTUSblog
For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging...
Sonia Sotomayor appeared this morning on @TODAYshow to promote her new children's book, "Just Help!: How to Build a Better World." She spoke briefly about the public's perception of the court. Here's the interview: https://www.today.com/video/justice-sotomayor-on-new-book-supreme-court-s-credibility-loss-of-her-mother-131639365722
Today's big cert grant in a TikTok minute.
In a unanimous ruling, SCOTUS revives a lawsuit against Northwestern University under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Current and former employees argue that the university is violating its fiduciary duties in the administration of its retirement investment plans.