|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-431||5th Cir.||Apr 17, 2019||Jun 24, 2019||5-4||Gorsuch||OT 2018|
Holding: Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
Judgment: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 24, 2019. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined, and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but Part II-C.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 03 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 2, 2018)|
|Oct 16 2018||Letter of October 16, 2018 from the Solicitor General filed.|
|Oct 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 2, 2018 to December 3, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 25 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 3, 2018.|
|Nov 01 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 2, 2018 to December 3, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 05 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 3, 2018.|
|Nov 30 2018||Brief of respondent Andre Levon Glover in opposition filed.|
|Nov 30 2018||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Andre Levon Glover.|
|Nov 30 2018||Brief of respondent Maurice Lamont Davis in opposition filed.|
|Dec 03 2018||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Maurice Lamont Davis.|
|Dec 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Dec 19 2018||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 04 2019||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Maurice Lamont Davis GRANTED.|
|Jan 04 2019||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Andre Levon Glover GRANTED.|
|Jan 04 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 29 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner United States.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 17, 2019|
|Feb 12 2019||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Feb 19 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Mar 14 2019||Brief of Maurice Lamont Davis, et al. not accepted for filing. (Corrected brief submitted.) (March 18, 2019)|
|Mar 14 2019||Brief of respondents Maurice Lamont Davis, et al. filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Mar 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of FAMM filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 05 2019||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 05 2019||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Andre Levon Glover.|
|Apr 17 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Brandon E. Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lubbock, Tex.|
|Apr 17 2019||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.|
|May 13 2019||Motion to appoint counsel GRANTED, and J. Joseph Mongaras, Esq., of Dallas, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Andre L. Glover.|
|Jun 24 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined, and in which Roberts, C. J., joined as to all but Part II–C.|
|Jul 26 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.