|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-420||9th Cir.||Apr 19, 2016||Jun 13, 2016||8-0||Ginsburg||OT 2015|
Holding: The use of tribal-court convictions as predicate offenses in a subsequent prosecution does not violate the Constitution when the tribal-court convictions occurred in proceedings that complied with the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 and were therefore valid when entered.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 13, 2016. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 5 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 4, 2015)|
|Nov 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed.|
|Nov 4 2015||Brief of respondent Michael Bryant, Jr. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 4 2015||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Michael Bryant, Jr.|
|Nov 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|Nov 23 2015||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 14 2015||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Dec 14 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 28 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed.)|
|Jan 28 2016||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Feb 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Indigenous Women's Resource Center, et al. filed.|
|Feb 4 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed.|
|Feb 4 2016||Brief amici curiae of Dennis K. Burke, United States Attorney, District of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Feb 19 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 7, 2016.|
|Mar 4 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 19, 2016|
|Mar 7 2016||Brief of respondent Michael Bryant, Jr. filed.|
|Mar 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Justice Organizations and Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professor Barbara Creel, and The Tribal Defender Network filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 14 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 14 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Mar 15 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 15 2016||The record from U.S.D.C. District of Montana is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of one document.|
|Mar 23 2016||The record from the U.S.C.A. is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Apr 6 2016||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 19 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Defender, Billings, Mont.|
|Jun 13 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Jun 30 2016||Letter from the United States received.|
|Jul 15 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...