|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-6075||11th Cir.||Not Argued||Jan 8, 2018||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Holding: On the unusual facts of this case, the court of appeals should not have rested its review of Keith Tharpe’s application for a certificate of appealability on the ground that it was indisputable among reasonable jurists that Barney Gattie’s service on the jury did not prejudice Tharpe.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on January 8, 2018. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 23 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2017)|
|Sep 23 2017||Application (17A330) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Sep 26 2017||Brief of respondent Eric Sellers, Warden in opposition filed.|
|Sep 26 2017||Application (17A330) referred to the Court.|
|Sep 26 2017||Reply of petitioner Keith Tharpe filed.|
|Sep 26 2017||Application (17A330) granted by the Court. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would deny the application.|
|Oct 02 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Oct 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2017.|
|Oct 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.|
|Nov 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2017.|
|Nov 13 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2017.|
|Nov 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2017.|
|Dec 04 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.|
|Dec 26 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting. (Detached Opinion).|
|Feb 09 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.