|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.