|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-218||6th 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 |
|Aug 17 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 21, 2011)|
|Aug 17 2011||Appendix of Terry Tibbals, Warden filed.|
|Sep 8 2011||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 31, 2011.|
|Oct 28 2011||Brief of respondent Sean Carter in opposition filed.|
|Oct 28 2011||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent.|
|Nov 7 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2011.|
|Nov 8 2011||Reply of petitioner Terry Tibbals, Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2012.|
|Mar 19 2012||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|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.|
|Apr 26 2012||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Sean Carter.|
|May 8 2012||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 24, 2012.|
|May 25 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|May 25 2012||Brief of petitioner Terry Tibbals, Warden filed.|
|May 29 2012||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED. Scott Michelman, Esquire, of Washington, D.C. is appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case.|
|Jun 1 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed (also in 10-930).|
|Jun 1 2012||Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed (also in 10-930).|
|Jul 9 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 17 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in suport of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Jul 20 2012||Brief of respondent Sean Carter filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, October 9, 2012|
|Jul 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 25 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for Sixth Circuit is electronic.|
|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 10-930)|
|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. (Distributed)|
|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 Terry Tibbals, Warden filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 23 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Ohio is electronic.|
|Aug 28 2012||Record recieved from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division. Transcripts and Exhibits. (6 Boxes)|
|Oct 9 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio. For respondent: Scott Michelman, Washington, D. C.|
|Oct 9 2012||Letter dated October 5, 2012 received from counsel for the respondent . (Distributed)|
|Jan 8 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. (Decided together with No. 10-930)|
|Feb 11 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 8 2013||Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Ohio..|
|Jun 27 2013||Additonal record (CD and Video Tape returned to U.S.D.C. for Nothern District of Ohio)|
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.