|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1038||9th Cir.||Dec 4, 2013||Feb 26, 2014||9-0||Roberts||OT 2013|
Holding: For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which makes it a crime to re-enter a “military installation” after having been ordered not to do so, a portion of an Air Force base that contains a designated protest area and an easement for a public road qualifies as a “military installation.”
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on February 26, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 13 2012||Application (12A610) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 26, 2012 to January 25, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Dec 19 2012||Application (12A610) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 25, 2013.|
|Jan 14 2013||Application (12A610) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 25, 2013 to February 24, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Jan 16 2013||Application (12A610) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until February 24, 2013.|
|Feb 22 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 25, 2013)|
|Mar 18 2013||Waiver of right of respondent John Dennis Apel to respond filed.|
|Mar 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Mar 29 2013||Response Requested . (Due April 29, 2013)|
|Apr 29 2013||Brief of respondent John Dennis Apel in opposition filed.|
|May 9 2013||Reply of petitioner United States filed.|
|May 14 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013.|
|Jun 3 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 3 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 25, 2013.|
|Jul 3 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 9, 2013.|
|Jul 16 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 22 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including August 16, 2013.|
|Jul 22 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including October 21, 2013.|
|Jul 23 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Aug 16 2013||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 16 2013||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Sep 17 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday December 4, 2013|
|Sep 17 2013||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 18 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 18 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Central District of California is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 21 2013||Brief of respondent John Dennis Apel filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 20 2013||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 4 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Benjamin J. Horwich, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Erwin Chemerinsky, Irvine, Cal.|
|Feb 26 2014||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Mar 31 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...